NationStates Jolt Archive

This might have been more apropriate in the recent Abortion thread but as of the time of this writing it's dropped off the top 3 pages so let it rest in... well whatever such a thread rests in.

I've been rabidly pro-life my whole life and it's the topic I've been found most often debating on here. I've seen arguments for pro-life run the gamut from simple worldview differences to some utterly stupid. It wasn't until last week that somebody's argument actually made enough sense to me to shake my opinion.

So I've spent the last few days mulling it over, and thinking very carefully about it and I've come to the conclusion that, much as I hate to say this, there is simply no practical way, in this day and age, to illegalize abortion in some cases while not in others. Here's the original argument with my initial reply. I've come to refer to it as the Ashmoria Torpedo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13426840&postcount=859).

And so, in fairness to those who have participated in this debate with me, I now acknowledge that for practical reasons*, I vote pro-choice.

Point of discussion: Has anyone else out there ever changed their mind on a big issue like this one, and if so, did you let people know?


(*Note. That doesn't mean I accept most of the B.S. arguments I've seen. My worldview hasn't changed, just the application of it.)

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have free tacos. :)


*hands you tacos*
http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

Point of discussion: Has anyone else out there ever changed their mind on a big issue like this one, and if so, did you let people know?

Well, first off congratulations on joining the pro-choice crowd :)

To your point of discussion: Not that I can think of, at the moment. Most of my opinions are based on careful contemplation and usually survive whatever is thrown at them. If I change my mind on something, it's usually very shortly after I become aware of a topic and when my stance is still shaky.

The one big instance I recall where I changed my opinion dramatically was when I was still an impressionable youth and gave up on the Palestinian cause, shifting to a more neutral outlook.

On quite a few things, actually.

The fact that Americans cling to the right of private gun ownership has been a complete anachronism and paradox in my view, ever since I first heard about it. It just didn't make sense to me in any way at all, the risks were so obviously outweighing the positive aspects.
It took a while (and a good few gun threads on here) for me to realise that first of all, I was looking at it from the wrong basis. I have lived my life in societies that aren't armed, I had never even touched a gun before in my life, and rarely ever seen one (security at airports was about the only time I had ever come across any guns). Furthermore, I was living in highly organised societies, in which services like the police force and court systems function very well.
The USA, on the other hand, is an armed society. Guns are widely available, and nothing out of the ordinary. Trying to get them out of society would not be easy, and could in fact be dangerous. Further, where the societies I know relied on police for law enforcement, people in the US are more willing and more used to taking the law into their own hands. Changing that, if one wanted to, would mean to change the availability of law enforcement and the mindset of the public first of all.

So, in conclusion, both work only hand in hand with the mentality of each society. Thinking an outright ban would solve problems in the US is just as ridiculous as thinking that liberating gun laws in Europe or Japan would be doing the general public a favour.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13434260#post13434260
Yep. This is about the only big change I've went through. From completly pro-life, to partially pro-choice.

NSG changes someone's views?? :eek:

I went from supporting Israel over Palestine to basically hating everybody.

Ashmoria rules :D

Whenever we have a new abortion thread, there's always somebody who has to wander in and insist that the discussion won't make any difference because nobody will ever change their minds anyhow.

I'm saving this thread link for the next time that happens.

Whenever we have a new abortion thread, there's always somebody who has to wander in and insist that the discussion won't make any difference because nobody will ever change their minds anyhow.

I'm saving this thread link for the next time that happens.The big battles are fought for the hearts and minds of the lurkers anyway. ;)

My faith in humanity has been greatly improved by the fact that, thus far, there have been no "I told you so" people.

:)

Cool, NB. :)

And all kudos to Ashmoria for making the case so well.

As to changing my mind: I've never yet changed my mind about something I felt strongly about on a personal level, but I did change my position re the death penalty. I used to be neutral/nominally in favor of it, but after spending many years observing how it works in the US legal system, I settled on being very strongly against it.

My faith in humanity has been greatly improved by the fact that, thus far, there have been no "I told you so" people.

:)That's because the usual "I told you so" in this case is "You can't change people's minds on NSG!!!!111!!!!" :p

That's because the usual "I told you so" in this case is "You can't change people's minds on NSG!!!!111!!!!" :p

Does this mean that such a person has been proven wrong?

(Note: This isn't the first position change I've publicly indicated on here. Last year I came out in favor of keeping the Government out of marriage definition where previously I had argued against gay marriage.)

Cool, NB. :)

And all kudos to Ashmoria for making the case so well.

As to changing my mind: I've never yet changed my mind about something I felt strongly about on a personal level, but I did change my position re the death penalty. I used to be neutral/nominally in favor of it, but after spending many years observing how it works in the US legal system, I settled on being very strongly against it.

I've been quietly contemplating that same issue myself, although I don't recall having participated in a debate over it. I have numerous strong issues with the criminal justice system in this country anyway, so the death penalty is another piece of it that needs to be fixed/eliminated along with so many other things.

In the fifth year of high school I wrote a paper on nuclear fission that really changed my mind on the role of traditional nuclear power plants in the energy problem. I researched several major disasters involving those power plants and came to the discovery that, as far as I know, all incidents with nuclear reactors were caused by criminal negligence and/or criminal stupidity. When run in a responsible manner and with proper safeguards the nuclear fission reaction is more than stable enough to be used for the majority of our energy production, especially as solar and wind energy aren't cost effective enough (yet).

Baby killer;)


Its aight, you can be my roomie in hell. We'll spend eternity playing D&D and Warhammer:D


In all seriousness, it takes guts to publically acknowledge that youve changed your opinion on a topic such as this after all the heated debate here.


Welcome to the dark side. Heres your complimentary fruit basket.

Baby killer;)


Its aight, you can be my roomie in hell. We'll spend eternity playing D&D and Warhammer:D

Well if it's hell, then we must be playing 3rd Edition D&D and having to suffer retail prices on the Warhammer models...


In all seriousness, it takes guts to publically acknowledge that youve changed your opinion on a topic such as this after all the heated debate here.


Welcome to the dark side. Heres your complimentary fruit basket.

Thanks.

Oooh... pineapple...

Well if it's hell, then we must be playing 3rd Edition D&D and having to suffer retail prices on the Warhammer models...

Yeah, and the only armies we can play are 6th edition HE and DE, while everyone else plays duel steam tank lists....:p

<SNIP lengthy explanation>

So if I read this right, You don't like the idea of abortions, but wouldn't try to have your opinion forced upon other?


I knew you had it in you Neo B :D

Well if it's hell, then we must be playing 3rd Edition D&D and having to suffer retail prices on the Warhammer models...

I take issue here. Unless you're a fan of Rangers, there is nothing wrong with 3rd edition. At least nothing that 3.5 didn't fix.

In the fifth year of high school I wrote a paper on nuclear fission that really changed my mind on the role of traditional nuclear power plants in the energy problem. I researched several major disasters involving those power plants and came to the discovery that, as far as I know, all incidents with nuclear reactors were caused by criminal negligence and/or criminal stupidity. When run in a responsible manner and with proper safeguards the nuclear fission reaction is more than stable enough to be used for the majority of our energy production, especially as solar and wind energy aren't cost effective enough (yet).

I don't think anybody would object to that. However, there ARE people who don't trust the folks running nuclear reactors enough to suppose they'd never allow for such negligence or stupidity, especially if it increases their margin. ;)
Even Chernobyl didn't blow up because it was falling apart, it blew up because tests were run that resulted in the reactor overheating.

I think it was Douglas Adams who famously said "People who invent absolutely fool-proof items usually underestimate the sheer creativity of absolute fools."


I would agree that it's the best we have for the moment, but I think it's nowhere good enough, nor will it ever be. We need to find other ways to produce energy just as cost-efficiently.

Yeah, and the only armies we can play are 6th edition HE and DE, while everyone else plays duel steam tank lists....:p

Irony: I DO have an army of 6th Edition Dark Elves... $$$ Evidently Naggaroth does not understand well the concept of plastic...

So if I read this right, You don't like the idea of abortions, but wouldn't try to have your opinion forced upon other?


I knew you had it in you Neo B :D

*grumble grumble*

The thing about Ashmoria's Torpedo is in my mind I saw a mass of rape accusations being used to justify abortions in rape cases... And in this day and age, with the paranioa over sex crimes in general... That's a lot of guys' lives ruined unjustly.

I take issue here. Unless you're a fan of Rangers, there is nothing wrong with 3rd edition. At least nothing that 3.5 didn't fix.

I AM a fan of Rangers... and 3.5 is evern WORSE to them than 3rd. Rogues indeed... Not that they treated Paladins any better :mad:

I run a campaign on alternating Fridays and we play 1st EDITION BABY!

I can't recall ever having a sudden shift or about face on an issue. I have had my opinions on numerous topics change gradually (but often to a large extent) over time, though.

I don't think anybody would object to that. However, there ARE people who don't trust the folks running nuclear reactors enough to suppose they'd never allow for such negligence or stupidity, especially if it increases their margin. ;)
Even Chernobyl didn't blow up because it was falling apart, it blew up because tests were run that resulted in the reactor overheating.

I think it was Douglas Adams who famously said "People who invent absolutely fool-proof items usually underestimate the sheer creativity of absolute fools."


I would agree that it's the best we have for the moment, but I think it's nowhere good enough, nor will it ever be. We need to find other ways to produce energy just as cost-efficiently.

At the risk of promoting a tangent, I agree. I think coal burning plants are vastly worse for the enviornment and horribly less ocst effective than Nuclear plants.

Want to hear something ironic? Coal burning plants contaminate the environment with MORE radioactive material than Nuclear plants. Why? Because radioactive gases trapped in coal naturally are released when the coal is burned. This is not regulated by any Government because it's considered naturally occurring.

Let that thought marinate in your mind and see how well you sleep at night if you live near one.

Actually, I went through this exact change. When I was in grade 5, though and only because my grandparents has explained it as actually taking a four month old baby and killing it instead of a fetus before it was born.

Oh, transformations, you say? Oh dear, let me see:

I used to be religious. (Shocker, I know!) To make a long story short, I slowly progressed from christianity, through a vague, wishy-washy theism, to an even more vague deism, to full-blown atheism. I could probably write a whole post (hell, a short book, even, if I really took the time) on this alone, but I don't want to bore anybody.

I also, as a result of my religiosity, used to think that religion was a positive force in the world: all the bad things done in the name of it weren't really caused by religion! No, of course not! (Actually, if you go to some of my early posts where I semi-lurked, you can find some of this in there.), now I think, for the most part, it's negative.

NSG played a slight role in the above two, but not that much-- it was more of a matter of admitting to myself what I had believed for a few years.

I used to be anti-choice, but, after considering the arguments for a while, I changed my mind to saying "Well, okay, but only in the first trimester," and now I'm pretty much convinced it should be legal at any stage-- as unfortunate as it is when it occurs, especially in the later stages. (This second shift to full pro-choice was the result of NSG, actually. I think it was Bottle who did it-- the fact that if it's happening that late, it's almost certainly medically necessary.)

I used to be for gay civil unions, now I'm for full gay marriage rights.

I used to be pretty much a complete capitalist dogmatist. Too many people mooch off welfare, I said. Government provided healthcare?! What?!
However, a combination of NSG debates and independent consideration of the issue have lead me to a more leftist view.

I used to be completely in support of the death penalty. Now, while I can honestly see the point of view, I think the risk of executing innocents is too high.

I-- and I admit it-- originally supported the War in Iraq. I was sure we'd find WMDs eventually! Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, so even IF we never found them, it was worth it just to remove him! Freedom! Yeah!

Mostly, I think most of these changes came from being willing to abandon the political and religious views of my father. I had to think long and hard about all of these. I look back on my old views and consider them abhorrent, but, to be fair, I was young and in a fairly Republican house. (Well, my mother's a bit more leftist-- she's Danish, and is so adjusted to that political spectrum-- but I never identified with her views.)

As soon as I began to form my own political views, I drifted away from that upbringing. I'd always had this nagging unease whenever I forwarded arguments in favor of my positions, but I just kinda ignored it. And I think I always knew that I would, eventually, change my mind on these-- I just needed a catalyst to do so. I had a few such catalysts, many of them around the same time-- NSG probably being one of them, others including(but by no means limited to!) the miserable failure of Shrubya's policies, beginning to read the newspaper, and several books I read (most especially The Audacity of Hope and The God Delusion). The final bit, I think, of the long process was a period of introspection and contemplation brought upon by the death of my roommate in October of 2006.

Now, since I've undoubtedly bored you to tears, I shall end this post.

The thing about Ashmoria's Torpedo is in my mind I saw a mass of rape accusations being used to justify abortions in rape cases... And in this day and age, with the paranioa over sex crimes in general... That's a lot of guys' lives ruined unjustly.

The devil is in the details, eh? Many people are opposed to abortion but still pro-choice because we think the consequences of making abortion illegal are worse than the alternative. You've apparently found your consequence.

At the risk of promoting a tangent, I agree. I think coal burning plants are vastly worse for the enviornment and horribly less ocst effective than Nuclear plants.

Want to hear something ironic? Coal burning plants contaminate the environment with MORE radioactive material than Nuclear plants. Why? Because radioactive gases trapped in coal naturally are released when the coal is burned. This is not regulated by any Government because it's considered naturally occurring.

Let that thought marinate in your mind and see how well you sleep at night if you live near one.

No coal in this country. ;)
And even Britain is mostly off coal by now, for all I know.

Oh, transformations, you say? Oh dear, let me see:
<snip>

Now, since I've undoubtedly bored you to tears, I shall end this post.

I didn't find that at all boring.

Actually, I'm sort of the mirror opposite in some ways. My dad comes from a Socialist South American country and his views are almost universally far left of my own. It used to lead to angry debates but now it leads to just pleasand discussion as I've gained his respect for being able to make up my own mind of not for the results therof.

I AM a fan of Rangers... and 3.5 is evern WORSE to them than 3rd. Rogues indeed... Not that they treated Paladins any better :mad:

3.5 Rangers are superior to 3.0 Rangers in pretty much every way. Ditto for 3.5 Paladins.

The devil is in the details, eh? Many people are opposed to abortion but still pro-choice because we think the consequences of making abortion illegal are worse than the alternative. You've apparently found your consequence.

It hits close to home.

No coal in this country. ;)
And even Britain is mostly off coal by now, for all I know.

Oh good. Now if we can just get that ball rolling in the U.S. No new Nuc plants have been built here since the TMI incident, when public paranoia replaced common sense.

3.5 Rangers are superior to 3.0 Rangers in pretty much every way. Ditto for 3.5 Paladins.

Blasphemy!

This topic makes me happy.

Also Ashmoria earns free brownie points in the Great Book of Atma.

I AM a fan of Rangers... and 3.5 is evern WORSE to them than 3rd. Rogues indeed... Not that they treated Paladins any better :mad:

I run a campaign on alternating Fridays and we play 1st EDITION BABY!

Bah. 'Tis a sad world indeed when people cling to the old ways in spite of the new.

3.5 all the way, Sorcs and Fighters.

I wish they'd release more information about 4th edition. Apparently it's going to have classes extending to level 30, rather than level 20.

3.5 Rangers are superior to 3.0 Rangers in pretty much every way. Ditto for 3.5 Paladins.

Honestly, making enhanced range combat OR two-weapon fighting basically class abilities for rangers was a stroke of genius.

Bah. 'Tis a sad world indeed when people cling to the old ways in spite of the new.

3.5 all the way, Sorcs and Fighters.

I wish they'd release more information about 4th edition. Apparently it's going to have classes extending to level 30, rather than level 20.

I've really only played in 3.5, but I like it just fine. I'm looking forward to seeing 4th. We'll see if I actually like playing it.

Oh good. Now if we can just get that ball rolling in the U.S. No new Nuc plants have been built here since the TMI incident, when public paranoia replaced common sense.


Have they built new coal-burning plants?

I've really only played in 3.5, but I like it just fine. I'm looking forward to seeing 4th. We'll see if I actually like playing it.

Keleth and I are going to be hitting all the usual places on the web shortly after the release. SOMEONE's going to have to have a .pdf of them.

...though I may buy them for the home group's use.

I was in an abortion thread shortly after I arrived in 2005, arguing pro-life, when Muravyets came in and was very patient with me and actually explained to me some of the poor assumptions I was making and asked some very intelligent questions and I realized I actually was pro-choice.

Bottle has often helped me question some attitudes I have had and refine my view on things.

I think really my opinion hasn't changed, I just didn't realize what my opinion really was until some good questions were asked and I had to think.

Welcome to the dark side. Heres your complimentary fruit basket.

But... I thought the fruit baskets are for the dumbfucks! /gratuitous Lamb reference.

Honestly, making enhanced range combat OR two-weapon fighting basically class abilities for rangers was a stroke of genius.

Granted, they're still awful, but they're better than 3.0.

I AM a fan of Rangers... and 3.5 is evern WORSE to them than 3rd. Rogues indeed... Not that they treated Paladins any better :mad:

I run a campaign on alternating Fridays and we play 1st EDITION BABY!

THAC0... Brrr, I have nightmares about trying to figure out THAC0. I never understood the logic of having your AC reduced by +whatever the armor value is. 3.5 all the way!

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media.



Im sorry, but thats got to be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. If you really think that allowing legal abortions opress women....your sadly, sadly misguided.


I used to be super religious. Then I actually read the Bible. And there I learnt that it was all pretty much made of fail.

Granted, they're still awful, but they're better than 3.0.

I hate Rangers anyway. Sorcerers all the way.

And THAC0 is Wack0.

I hate Rangers anyway. Sorcerers all the way.

And THAC0 is Wack0.

WIZARDS!!!!!!!

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media. How the murder of a living being (a human obviously...since it is produced by human gametes and develops into a human - it even looks human by the time most abortions happen) can be approved by society is beyond me, and how opposing infanticide infringes on women's rights is just weird (no person has the right to kill). At the end of the day there are lots of people looking to adopt, if you really don't want your child. If your life is in danger, fair enough, but there's no other reason to murder your own offspring.

I can see why people argue pro-choice, but I completely disagree. Women are equal to men, and so why women are allowed to kill their own child where men cannot creates an imbalance. And the fact that somebody could kill at all repulses me.

Yes I am religious, but this argument is not based on religious values, but what I believe. I'm not a right-wing fundamentalist. ;)

Im sorry, but thats got to be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. If you really think that allowing legal abortions opress women....your sadly, sadly misguided.

Hey, some people think allowing women to decide how they will dress is oppressing women.

There are some weird views out there.

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media. How the murder of a living being (a human obviously...since it is produced by human gametes and develops into a human - it even looks human by the time most abortions happen) can be approved by society is beyond me, and how opposing infanticide infringes on women's rights is just weird (no person has the right to kill). At the end of the day there are lots of people looking to adopt, if you really don't want your child. If your life is in danger, fair enough, but there's no other reason to murder your own offspring.

I can see why people argue pro-choice, but I completely disagree. Women are equal to men, and so why women are allowed to kill their own child where men cannot creates an imbalance. And the fact that somebody could kill at all repulses me.

Yes I am religious, but this argument is not based on religious values, but what I believe. I'm not a right-wing fundamentalist. ;)


When does a human actually become human?

(Edit: Because you seem to think it is wrong to kill HUMANS...)

NSG changes someone's views?? :eek:

I went from supporting Israel over Palestine to basically hating everybody.

I went from supporting Palestine over Israel to supporting Israel over Palestine to wishing that both sides would just grow up and stop dumping metaphorical fridges on each other's metaphorical front lawn. :)

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media.

Ah yes, the old "We must protect women from themselves, lest they be oppressed by the burden of having to exhibit legal adulthood" argument.

Keep telling yourself that you're fighting to free women from oppression by taking their rights away. Please. Because then I can keep laughing. :D


How the murder of a living being (a human obviously...since it is produced by human gametes and develops into a human - it even looks human by the time most abortions happen) can be approved by society is beyond me, and how opposing infanticide infringes on women's rights is just weird (no person has the right to kill).

Killing another human being is justified in a range of situations. Indeed, our government employs thousands of individuals for the express purpose of sending them to kill other human beings. It's not just their "right" to kill, it's their job.


At the end of the day there are lots of people looking to adopt, if you really don't want your child. If your life is in danger, fair enough, but there's no other reason to murder your own offspring.

Every time an anti-choicer uses the term "murder" incorrectly, a woman miscarries.

The above statement is every bit as accurate as your use of the term "murder."


I can see why people argue pro-choice, but I completely disagree. Women are equal to men, and so why women are allowed to kill their own child where men cannot creates an imbalance.

I support any man's right to terminate his own pregnancy at any time and for any reason. No legal inequality there.


And the fact that somebody could kill at all repulses me.

You kill every second of every day. You are killing life right now. Deal with it, or die.


Yes I am religious, but this argument is not based on religious values, but what I believe. I'm not a right-wing fundamentalist. ;)
Congrats. You are another living example of how uninformed and ignorant opinions can thrive even without direct religious direction.

Ah yes, the old "We must protect women from themselves, lest they be oppressed by the burden of having to exhibit legal adulthood" argument.

Keep telling yourself that you're fighting to free women from oppression by taking their rights away. Please. Because then I can keep laughing. :D


Killing another human being is justified in a range of situations. Indeed, our government employs thousands of individuals for the express purpose of sending them to kill other human beings. It's not just their "right" to kill, it's their job.


Every time an anti-choicer uses the term "murder" incorrectly, a woman miscarries.

The above statement is every bit as accurate as your use of the term "murder."


I support any man's right to terminate his own pregnancy at any time and for any reason. No legal inequality there.


You kill every second of every day. You are killing life right now. Deal with it, or die.


Congrats. You are another living example of how uninformed and ignorant opinions can thrive even without direct religious direction.



Is it strange that Ive gotten to a point that any time I see Bottle was the last poster in a topic that topic becomes a priority read?

THAC0... Brrr, I have nightmares about trying to figure out THAC0. I never understood the logic of having your AC reduced by +whatever the armor value is. 3.5 all the way!

THAC0 was 2nd Ed. 1st Ed. had to hit tables.

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media. How the murder of a living being (a human obviously...since it is produced by human gametes and develops into a human - it even looks human by the time most abortions happen) can be approved by society is beyond me, and how opposing infanticide infringes on women's rights is just weird (no person has the right to kill). At the end of the day there are lots of people looking to adopt, if you really don't want your child. If your life is in danger, fair enough, but there's no other reason to murder your own offspring.

I can see why people argue pro-choice, but I completely disagree. Women are equal to men, and so why women are allowed to kill their own child where men cannot creates an imbalance. And the fact that somebody could kill at all repulses me.

Yes I am religious, but this argument is not based on religious values, but what I believe. I'm not a right-wing fundamentalist. ;)

:rolleyes: OK, whatever...

Is it strange that Ive gotten to a point that any time I see Bottle was the last poster in a topic that topic becomes a priority read?

Only a little...




Hey Bottle! Watch out (or congratulations) you've got yourself a stalker.

...that if somebody does not want to have a child they may kill it.
Abortion is not equatable to killing a child/patriarchal opression, unless you somehow think that menstruation or masturbation is also killing children/patriarchal opression.

These things are all remnants of that time when men ruled all.

You mean like opposing a woman's right to make choices about her own body is also a remnant of that time?

But if we were to travel back through time to the days where natural instinct ruled, not laws and civilisation, and we were to put women through an interview, I wonder how many would agree that killing their child was right?

Great, and many of them didnt know that there were other planets, and if they did they thought the earth was the center of it all. They also didnt know it was a good idea to keep your fecies away from your food.

We need to move away from the religious influence in politics, away from male-oriented society and rebuild an equal society

So....you oppose a woman's right to choose what she does with her body why? Based on the above...you should be pro-choice...

But if we were to travel back through time to the days where natural instinct ruled, not laws and civilisation, and we were to put women through an interview, I wonder how many would agree that killing their child was right?

Abortion and infanticide are not new inventions. Indeed, the idea that it is wrong to leave a malformed child to die of exposure is a relatively new concept in human history.

Note that throughout the world, most cultures did not even consider a child to be "real" or worthy of a name until the child had survived for a substantial time post-birth.


I believe that in order to create a more equal society we need to go back and look inside ourselves, not patriarchy and tradition and find out whether we really want to kill children. We need to move away from the religious influence in politics, away from male-oriented society and rebuild an equal society based on the good parts of the natural instinct of humans, such as charity, forgiveness and respect for life.
"Respect for life" always ends up meaning "the bodies of female human beings are public property." With respect like this, who needs oppression?

Ahh well. The notion of stripping women of their rights in order to "protect" them is nothing new. I wish anti-choicers would get new material some day.

Im sorry, but thats got to be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. If you really think that allowing legal abortions opress women....your sadly, sadly misguided.


I used to be super religious. Then I actually read the Bible. And there I learnt that it was all pretty much made of fail.

I'm not super religious. I'm just religious. In the past those who were in public service were usually men, and the was that society has changed we have grown to accept many of these patriarchal ideas. Feminism recognised many of these ideas and rebelled, liberating women from most of their opression. Even today as we speak there is more exploitation of women than men...just look at how some people see single mothers but not single fathers. These things are all remnants of that time when men ruled all.

Sadly, abortion still exists. This patriarchal society, after the time where most of these men were religious and would have opposed abortion anyway, has somehow twisted our view to show that if somebody does not want to have a child they may kill it. I agree that the vast majority of feminists (in fact quite a lot of women in general, and men) agree with abortion, and I can see why. But if we were to travel back through time to the days where natural instinct ruled, not laws and civilisation, and we were to put women through an interview, I wonder how many would agree that killing their child was right? And even with the influence of law and morals and ethics, our instinct is still there. I believe that in order to create a more equal society we need to go back and look inside ourselves, not patriarchy and tradition and find out whether we really want to kill children. We need to move away from the religious influence in politics, away from male-oriented society and rebuild an equal society based on the good parts of the natural instinct of humans, such as charity, forgiveness and respect for life.

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media.

I would argue that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is much more oppressive, both to her and the potential kids. Sherri Tepper makes a much more nuanced argument towards the end of Gibbons Decline and Fall.

Bah. 'Tis a sad world indeed when people cling to the old ways in spite of the new.

3.5 all the way, Sorcs and Fighters.

I wish they'd release more information about 4th edition. Apparently it's going to have classes extending to level 30, rather than level 20.

Not the 'old ways' my friend... the PURE ways. Back when tabletop gaming put hair on your chest and didn't try to emulate other gaming media.

I've really only played in 3.5, but I like it just fine. I'm looking forward to seeing 4th. We'll see if I actually like playing it.

1st Edition will make you happy. 2nd is good too. Come over to our side.

Have they built new coal-burning plants?

Yes, I believe they have.

THAC0... Brrr, I have nightmares about trying to figure out THAC0. I never understood the logic of having your AC reduced by +whatever the armor value is. 3.5 all the way!

THAC0 was 2nd Ed. 1st Ed. had to hit tables.

Actually, 1st Edition had to hit tables at first, but a Dragon Magazine article introduced THAC0 before 2nd Edition came out.

And it makes perfect sense. Hit roll - Target AC > your THAC0, you miss. Hit roll - Target AC <= your THAC0, you hit!

At least in 1st and 2nd Edition we didn't need all the math spelled out for us on the character sheet :P

When does a human actually become human?

(Edit: Because you seem to think it is wrong to kill HUMANS...)

The minute the zygote implants into the wall of the uterus: the time when it has any realistic chance of becoming a baby. This is why I don't mind stem cell research.

Abortion is not equatable to killing a child/patriarchal opression, unless you somehow think that menstruation or masturbation is also killing children/patriarchal opression.

Menstruation and masturbation destroy gametes, not babies.

Could you do me a favour and expound upon what exactly you mean by saying that giving the right to get an abortion to women is "oppressing" them? I just can't quite make the logical leap there. :confused:

Hey Bottle! Watch out (or congratulations) you've got yourself a stalker.
As long as nobody is planning to shoot me as a means of impressing Jodie Foster, it's all good.

Menstruation and masturbation destroy gametes, not babies.

Abortion destroys fetuses, not babies.

Could you do me a favour and expound upon what exactly you mean by saying that giving the right to get an abortion to women is "oppressing" them? I just can't quite make the logical leap there. :confused:
Allow me:

Women all MUST naturally want to have babies. Furthermore, women all MUST naturally want to carry every pregnancy they experience all the way to term. If women are--for some freakish reason--choosing not to carry every pregnancy to term, then this must be because they are being forced to do so against their natural instincts.

No, there is no such thing as a woman who doesn't want to have babies. No, there is no such thing as a woman who simply does not wish to continue her current pregnancy. No, it is never natural or rational for a woman to conclude that carrying her current pregnancy to term would be a bad idea.

Why, you ask?

Why, because I say so! Everybody likes babies! Nobody likes hurting babies! It's a widely-believed fact!

Ah yes, the old "We must protect women from themselves, lest they be oppressed by the burden of having to exhibit legal adulthood" argument.

How killing children is a clever, adult thing to do is very odd indeed.

[/QUOTE]Keep telling yourself that you're fighting to free women from oppression by taking their rights away. Please. Because then I can keep laughing. :D[/QUOTE]

It's not just the woman we're talking about...it's the child too.

Killing another human being is justified in a range of situations. Indeed, our government employs thousands of individuals for the express purpose of sending them to kill other human beings. It's not just their "right" to kill, it's their job.

I'm a pacifist. I don't believe it's justified at all. The fact I'm a pacifist is the whole reason I'm pro-life.

Every time an anti-choicer uses the term "murder" incorrectly, a woman miscarries.


Miscarriage isn't murder...that woman didn't make a choice to have a miscarriage.

I support any man's right to terminate his own pregnancy at any time and for any reason. No legal inequality there.

Fair enough, I agree. :)

You kill every second of every day. You are killing life right now. Deal with it, or die.

I'm talking about humans, not bacteria or animals or plants. Washing my hands isn't necessarily doing anything wrong.

The minute the zygote implants into the wall of the uterus: the time when it has any realistic chance of becoming a baby. This is why I don't mind stem cell research.

Just because I'm a stickler for proper terminology, the zygote does not implant into the wall of the uterus. The embryo does.

Could you do me a favour and expound upon what exactly you mean by saying that giving the right to get an abortion to women is "oppressing" them? I just can't quite make the logical leap there. :confused:

Not being able to make that leap is a good thing

A society that gives people the right to kill children <snip>

Fail.

Abortion doesn't kill children.A child is a human being between birth and puberty.

Could you do me a favour and expound upon what exactly you mean by saying that giving the right to get an abortion to women is "oppressing" them? I just can't quite make the logical leap there. :confused:

A society that gives people the right to kill children doesn't seem one that appears very progressive, peaceful and just. We need to move away from abortion. If somebody doesn't want their child, why not help another person/family and give it up for adoption?

I used to think all drugs should be banned, now I think they would be safer if they where all legal. No I did not tell anyone.

I don't think it's right that the father is not informed about an abortion. The child belongs to both parents. I hate it when people make this about "a woman's right to choose." When did the mother become all important? There are 3 people involved, the most important of which is the potential baby. There are some cases when it might be in the best interests of the future child to abort them. Most mothers who get abortions already have babies and can't afford another one. Aborting the baby is less cruel than giving birth to it and letting it grow up poor and unwanted.

Buddy, you didn't answer my question. I'm asking you why you said it was oppressive, not conservative.

Buddy, you didn't answer my question. I'm asking you why you said it was oppressive, not conservative.

No offense to anybody, but I believe that to be conservative is in many cases oppressive.

Just because I'm a stickler for proper terminology, the zygote does not implant into the wall of the uterus. The embryo does.

"Fusion of the sperm with the ovacyte occurs in the Fallopian tube and the resulting diploid zygote becomes embedded in the uterus wall" :)

It's technically an embryo and a zygote

Fail.

Abortion doesn't kill children.

Wrong terminology, sorry. I mean human life, or to be specific an embryo or foetus. :)

"Fusion of the sperm with the ovacyte occurs in the Fallopian tube and the resulting diploid zygote becomes embedded in the uterus wall":)

No, a zygote is one cell, the embryo which implants in the uterus is already in the blastocyst stage.

No, a zygote is one cell, the embryo which implants in the uterus is already in the blastocyst stage.

My apologies, sorry. :)

As long as nobody is planning to shoot me as a means of impressing Jodie Foster, it's all good.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when Bottle compares herself to Ronald Reagan.

No offense to anybody, but I believe that to be conservative is in many cases oppressive.

You're missing the point. Yes, conservatism is, in many cases, oppressive; however, abortion is neither. I'm asking you why you think it is.

I don't think it's right that the father is not informed about an abortion. The child belongs to both parents.

The woman's body only belongs to one.

Personally, I agree that, in most cases, a woman should discuss this with the father, but I wouldn't make that legally binding.

I hate it when people make this about "a woman's right to choose." When did the mother become all important?

When she became the one who is pregnant.

You're missing the point. Yes, conservatism is, in many cases, oppressive; however, abortion is neither. I'm asking you why you think it is.

Because I believe that a society that approves of killing human life and endorses abortion oppresses women into moving away from personal instincts of protection and value of life. :)

Because I believe that a society that approves of killing human life and endorses abortion oppresses women into moving away from personal instincts of protection and value of life. :)

Considering that ancient peoples approved of much more killing and much less protection, does that mean we've been getting progressively closer to our instincts?

Because I believe that a society that approves of killing human life and endorses abortion oppresses women into moving away from personal instincts of protection and value of life. :)

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken opinion that women who get abortions are being forced to do so. On the contrary, the reason they get the abortions is because they want to.

Because I believe that a society that approves of killing human life and endorses abortion oppresses women into moving away from personal instincts of protection and value of life. :)

Nobody forces women to have an abortion...

The reason they want to is because people have been brought up to believe it's right.

So women have always been brought up to believe it's right?

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken opinion that women who get abortions are being forced to do so. On the contrary, the reason they get the abortions is because they want to.

The reason they want to is because people have been brought up to believe it's right. It's like somebody who is brought up to believe that mass murder is justfiable: to change their opinion into what we see as "good" or a view of "good" can, from those who share the views the person is being converted to, be seen as freeing from oppression by brainwashing, to put it a little crudely. I'm not saying that those who are pro-choice are "brainwashed", what I'm saying is that view is wrong in my opinion and to change it for the better is to free people from oppression.

So basically you just want to impose your bigoted morals on everyone else.

Why don't we just take away womens' right to vote while we're at it, eh? According to you they obviously don't know what's best for them anyway.

Miscarriage isn't murder...

Neither is abortion.

I'm talking about humans, not bacteria or animals or plants. Washing my hands isn't necessarily doing anything wrong.
It is killing several human cells, not just the bacteria. Those cells were alive, and were human, therefore they were "human life". We do not care, not even a tiny little bit, because those cells are no "personal", have no mind, no ability to feel or act. Neither does an embryo.

Because I believe that a society that approves of killing human life and endorses abortion oppresses women into moving away from personal instincts of protection and value of life. :)you seem to know nothing of a woman's instincts :rolleyes:

I used to think all drugs should be banned, now I think they would be safer if they where all legal. No I did not tell anyone.

I don't think it's right that the father is not informed about an abortion. The child belongs to both parents. I hate it when people make this about "a woman's right to choose." When did the mother become all important? There are 3 people involved, the most important of which is the potential baby. There are some cases when it might be in the best interests of the future child to abort them. Most mothers who get abortions already have babies and can't afford another one. Aborting the baby is less cruel than giving birth to it and letting it grow up poor and unwanted.

I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that, ideally, it would be nice for the father to be informed, and for him to be part of the decision.

Where you're going to get a lot of disagreement is if you start suggesting this should be required. What if the father got the mother pregnant by raping her? What if the father is the mother's own father? What if the father is likely to harm the mother if he finds out about her pregnancy or abortion? Do we really feel those men need a say? Further, if we start legally considering the father's input, what happens when the mother and father disagree? In the end, only one person can make the final decision, and if the whole world disagrees with her, well, that sucks, but the whole world doesn't get to control her body.

It's easy, leave the father out of the decision, but legalize polygamy. :D

There's an even easier solution: If you don't like abortion (gay marriage, etc), don't get one. You're welcome to try to persuade women that there are better options, but you have no bloody right to try to impose your morality on anyone but yourself. Keep your laws off my body!

There's an even easier solution: If you don't like abortion (gay marriage, etc), don't get one. You're welcome to try to persuade women that there are better options, but you have no bloody right to try to impose your morality on anyone but yourself.

Exactly

Keep your laws off my body!

*stacks law books on Kbrook *

*stacks law books on Kbrook *

*collapses under the weight of all those books and runs off to tattle about how mean you are*

*collapses under the weight of all those books and runs off to tattle about how mean you are*

:(
*hangs head*
sorry

:fluffle:

It's easy, leave the father out of the decision, but legalize polygamy. :D

One man, multiple wives? I'm not quite getting how one leads to the other. One woman, multiple husbands is polyandry, though. Is that what you meant? Or am I just a ditz?

One man, multiple wives? I'm not quite getting how one leads to the other. One woman, multiple husbands is polyandry, though. Is that what you meant? Or am I just a ditz?

Meh, legalize both


although not sure what polygamy or polyandry have to do with abortions

Don't keep me in suspense, guys... I'm still waiting for the Mormon joke.

Nothing, just a joke.

You know, as in men won't care about having their wife abort if they've got six others.

Mormons

there it is ;)

Bah.

It's not the size of the joke...

Don't keep me in suspense, guys... I'm still waiting for the Mormon joke.

Mormons

there it is ;)

Mormons

there it is ;)

I was going to say "too late, he's already dropped out of the election."

But it's neither topical or particularly good :(

Point of discussion: Has anyone else out there ever changed their mind on a big issue like this one...?


I used to be of the general right-wing "free market" Libertarian stance, until I personally visited a boy's and girl's orphanage in a Third World country with a church group. Over the course of the week, I arrived at three general conclusions: 1) the "invisible hand" is a heartless God without knowledge of mercy, and thus generally undeserving of belief; 2) even if effective, political corruption easily overcomes and destroys the "invisible hand," making it an impotent God, and thus, again, generally undeserving of belief; 3) real security, freedom, and change comes at the price of sore backs, sweat, and blood. "Debating" these things on an internet message board is one thing; actually seeing, smelling, and tasting it for one's self is a whole other kind of Metaphysical Piledriver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_%28professional_wrestling%29).

The first two points mark the beginning of my transition to the libertarian left, and the last point marks the beginning of my transition away from religion to secular humanism. My time and labor made a difference, not some invisible "hand," "God," or some other spaghetti monster in the sky.

As far as abortion goes, my position has changed as well. Although I still consider myself generally "pro-life" (if I must choose a label), I have come to recognize what kind of radical social change is necessary in order for such an agenda to work. Legal retribution is useless. If abortion is going to be made extremely rare or non-existent, as any reasonable person wishes, society is going to have to change in order to make that a viable option in the minds of people faced with horrifying choices. Sexual education and liberation, increased access to and use of contraceptives, communities that are willing to provide the social services and other support necessary to replace abortion, economic empowerment that is necessary for people to support their families. The present absence of all these are the disease that manifests itself in the symptom of abortion. The general "pro-life" conservative right, in its infinite asininity, insists on fighting symptoms. I've changed my mind: the key is to fight the disease, and this will require abandonment of the general conservative right social agenda in favor of something far more humane and effective.

"God" isn't doing shit about it. Time for people to take over.

So I've spent the last few days mulling it over, and thinking very carefully about it and I've come to the conclusion that, much as I hate to say this, there is simply no practical way, in this day and age, to illegalize abortion in some cases while not in others. Here's the original argument with my initial reply. I've come to refer to it as the Ashmoria Torpedo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13426840&postcount=859).

And so, in fairness to those who have participated in this debate with me, I now acknowledge that for practical reasons*, I vote pro-choice.

Point of discussion: Has anyone else out there ever changed their mind on a big issue like this one, and if so, did you let people know?


(*Note. That doesn't mean I accept most of the B.S. arguments I've seen. My worldview hasn't changed, just the application of it.)

Kudos to you for accepting the logic of Ashmoria's argument and for having the guts to admit you have changed your opinion.

Kudos to Ashmoria for making an excellent argument.

I have changed my mind on big issues -- the Second Amendment and gun control, for example -- in part because of arguments encountered here in NSG and I believe I have let others know I've changed my mind.

I was once pro-choice, I'm now pro-life. I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media.

1. Bottle and others have more than adequately rebutted your nonsense, but I have a few additional points to make.

2. Here, it is rather obvious you know little about the history of humankind or of abortion in particular.

3. Women having control over their own bodies is not oppression, and you will find if you look at the world it is more patriarchal societies that try to ban abortion.

How the murder of a living being (a human obviously...since it is produced by human gametes and develops into a human - it even looks human by the time most abortions happen) can be approved by society is beyond me

At what time do you think most abortions happen? The facts are that more than 60% of abortions occur within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and that about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks. These are well before an unborn develops any meaningful claim to personhood.


and how opposing infanticide infringes on women's rights is just weird (no person has the right to kill).

1. Abortion isn't infanticide. Nice fail.

2. Taking away control of a woman's own body infringes on her rights.

3. Actually, we recognize the right to kill even persons in certain situations. Protecting one's bodily integrity fits within that right. Regardless, we kill nonpersons rather copiously and without concern.

At the end of the day there are lots of people looking to adopt, if you really don't want your child. If your life is in danger, fair enough, but there's no other reason to murder your own offspring.

Nice job of ignoring the burden, costs, and risks of nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. Not to mention loss of control over your own body.

I can see why people argue pro-choice, but I completely disagree. Women are equal to men, and so why women are allowed to kill their own child where men cannot creates an imbalance.

Men have the same right to control over their own body that women have. Men don't happen to become pregnant.

And the fact that somebody could kill at all repulses me.

Bullshit. You kill things everyday without guilt.

I'm not super religious. I'm just religious. In the past those who were in public service were usually men, and the was that society has changed we have grown to accept many of these patriarchal ideas. Feminism recognised many of these ideas and rebelled, liberating women from most of their opression. Even today as we speak there is more exploitation of women than men...just look at how some people see single mothers but not single fathers. These things are all remnants of that time when men ruled all.

Sadly, abortion still exists. This patriarchal society, after the time where most of these men were religious and would have opposed abortion anyway, has somehow twisted our view to show that if somebody does not want to have a child they may kill it. I agree that the vast majority of feminists (in fact quite a lot of women in general, and men) agree with abortion, and I can see why. But if we were to travel back through time to the days where natural instinct ruled, not laws and civilisation, and we were to put women through an interview, I wonder how many would agree that killing their child was right? And even with the influence of law and morals and ethics, our instinct is still there. I believe that in order to create a more equal society we need to go back and look inside ourselves, not patriarchy and tradition and find out whether we really want to kill children. We need to move away from the religious influence in politics, away from male-oriented society and rebuild an equal society based on the good parts of the natural instinct of humans, such as charity, forgiveness and respect for life.

Meh. You simply are wrong in claiming that abortion is a symptom of patriarchy. It is a historical and worldwide fact that anti-abortion laws are symptoms of patriarchy. Women having control over their own bodies is a step towards freedom.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one study of global abortion laws and their effects which makes clear that abortion is just as common but far more dangerous where abortion is outlawed. And here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself (but I think a free subscription is required to read it).

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

A society that gives people the right to kill children doesn't seem one that appears very progressive, peaceful and just. We need to move away from abortion. If somebody doesn't want their child, why not help another person/family and give it up for adoption?

A society that respects the rights of women is more progressive, peaceful, and just than one that doesn't.

Making abortion illegal doesn't "free" women, it oppresses and endangers them.

The reason they want to is because people have been brought up to believe it's right. It's like somebody who is brought up to believe that mass murder is justfiable: to change their opinion into what we see as "good" or a view of "good" can, from those who share the views the person is being converted to, be seen as freeing from oppression by brainwashing, to put it a little crudely. I'm not saying that those who are pro-choice are "brainwashed", what I'm saying is that view is wrong in my opinion and to change it for the better is to free people from oppression.

You are saying that women have abortions because they are "brainwashed." The view that recognizes women are equal moral agents capable of making good decisions is the better, less oppressive view.

I believe that abortion is the opression of women and children by the values of a modern patriarchal society and the media.



Women having control over their own bodies is a step towards freedom.


(I'm not necessarily responding to either of you in particular, so much as I am thinking "aloud." I feel that I might be on the verge of a personal epiphany that will result in a new understanding of what "pro-choice" means. Please, by all means, respond/comment if one is so moved. My apologies if any of the following seems obvious; I am in combat against years of religious, political and other values indoctrination.)

Abortion is not the oppression of women. Abortion is the consequence of a choice. Oppression occurs where choice is inhibited or denied all together. The key, then, to eliminating oppression is to support meaningful choice among as many alternatives as possible.

The problem with the general conservative/right "pro-life" approach to abortion is that it seeks to use legal retribution in order to limit available alternatives, specifically targeting those alternatives that produce abortion as a consequence. Combined with a social agenda that opposes social services, even more alternatives are eliminated. Of course, as one eliminates alternatives, one effectively eliminates choice.

In fact, one is increasingly likely to force people into making choices covertly, in an attempt to escape the alternative limiting effects of legal retribution. Choice will still be sought and gained, but only in an environment far more dangerous than should otherwise be preferred.

To support "choice," then, is simply to oppose the elimination of alternatives. One doesn't need to support the practice of abortion in order to support women having as many alternatives to choose from as possible. Indeed, the more alternatives there are, the more competition there is against those leading to abortion. This, in turn, helps make those alternatives leading to abortion less likely to be chosen!

This is why the right of the individual to control her own body, and exercise her own choice, is crucial in preventing abortion. Supporting the "right to choose" requires providing a multitude of meaningful alternatives (if there is nothing to choose from, there is no choice). And, of course, the more alternatives there are, the less likely any one particular alternative will be chosen.

Thus, the most effective strategy against abortion is to support choice, provide as many total alternative choices as possible, and ensure that the proportion of alternatives not leading to abortion is as large as possible at all times.

To do otherwise is not only to destroy choice, and thus destroy freedom, but is also to do absolutely nothing in preventing abortion anyway. Pro-choice is pro-life.

Bah.

It's not the size of the joke...

:p

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have free tacos. :)


*hands you tacos*
http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

The taco is made with aborted embryo :p

Pardon me for interrupting this abortion debate, but I thought I'd answer the OP.

My opinions used to be very colored by the Swedish society in most predictable ways, such as distrusting the USA and Israel, thinking that nuclear power was scary and that socialism was a good idea, and so on. I mostly credit this forum (this is my third or fourth nation, it has taken some time) for having come around on most issues, or at least decided that I'm not sure of anything anymore.

So, yes, you changed me NSG. Not so much from one extreme to another, perhaps, but still pretty fundamentally.

I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that, ideally, it would be nice for the father to be informed, and for him to be part of the decision.

Why?

One man, multiple wives? I'm not quite getting how one leads to the other. One woman, multiple husbands is polyandry, though. Is that what you meant? Or am I just a ditz?

Actually, polygamy refers to multiple wives/husbands in general. The specific term for one man, multiple wives is "polygyny."

I always point this out when people bring it up, and for some reason it's the only thing I actually remember from Sociology 101. :eek:

This might have been more apropriate in the recent Abortion thread but as of the time of this writing it's dropped off the top 3 pages so let it rest in... well whatever such a thread rests in.

I've been rabidly pro-life my whole life and it's the topic I've been found most often debating on here. I've seen arguments for pro-life run the gamut from simple worldview differences to some utterly stupid. It wasn't until last week that somebody's argument actually made enough sense to me to shake my opinion.

So I've spent the last few days mulling it over, and thinking very carefully about it and I've come to the conclusion that, much as I hate to say this, there is simply no practical way, in this day and age, to illegalize abortion in some cases while not in others. Here's the original argument with my initial reply. I've come to refer to it as the Ashmoria Torpedo (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13426840&postcount=859).

And so, in fairness to those who have participated in this debate with me, I now acknowledge that for practical reasons*, I vote pro-choice.

Point of discussion: Has anyone else out there ever changed their mind on a big issue like this one, and if so, did you let people know?


(*Note. That doesn't mean I accept most of the B.S. arguments I've seen. My worldview hasn't changed, just the application of it.)

Welcome...
*sigs "Ashmoria Tornado"*

I used to think all drugs should be banned, now I think they would be safer if they where all legal. No I did not tell anyone.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you tell anyone?


I don't think it's right that the father is not informed about an abortion. The child belongs to both parents. I hate it when people make this about "a woman's right to choose." When did the mother become all important?
When it was her body that became pregnant. The person who is pregnant is the only person in the situation who has the right to final say over whether or not to terminate.

Please remember that women who don't tell their partners about their abortion typically have, you know, a REASON. Women tend to be thinking, feeling, moral agents. If they have a good partner who can be trusted to respect them and their decisions, they generally will include him in the process. If they don't, they won't.

Remember: One third of American women will be battered by an intimate partner. Pregnancy INCREASES a woman's risk of being physically assaulted by an abusive partner. The leading cause of death for pregnant women in America is homicide at the hands of a male lover or relative.

Don't you think those realities might contribute to why women don't always tell the babydaddy?

I'm not saying this to argue that all men are bad or something. My point is that people need to quit assuming women are stupid or evil. Women have reasons for their choices, and they know a fuckton more about their situation than you do.

The minute the zygote implants into the wall of the uterus: the time when it has any realistic chance of becoming a baby. This is why I don't mind stem cell research.

You'd call a 50% chance realistic? :p

Actually, polygamy refers to multiple wives/husbands in general. The specific term for one man, multiple wives is "polygyny."

I always point this out when people bring it up, and for some reason it's the only thing I actually remember from Sociology 101. :eek:

You learn something new every day. Now I get to go to my Cultural Geography class and try to sort out my teacher's incredibly thick Sierra Leone accent.

You learn something new every day. Now I get to go to my Cultural Geography class and try to sort out my teacher's incredibly thick Sierra Leone accent.

I sympathize. My Sociology professor was a surly, thick-accented Portugese fellow who, while somewhat easy to understand, made understanding periodically difficult by injecting foul language at random points in his sentences.

...ahh the good old days.

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have free tacos. :)


*hands you tacos*
http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

Cool taco holder! :)

On quite a few things, actually.

The fact that Americans cling to the right of private gun ownership has been a complete anachronism and paradox in my view, ever since I first heard about it. It just didn't make sense to me in any way at all, the risks were so obviously outweighing the positive aspects.
It took a while (and a good few gun threads on here) for me to realise that first of all, I was looking at it from the wrong basis. I have lived my life in societies that aren't armed, I had never even touched a gun before in my life, and rarely ever seen one (security at airports was about the only time I had ever come across any guns). Furthermore, I was living in highly organised societies, in which services like the police force and court systems function very well.
The USA, on the other hand, is an armed society. Guns are widely available, and nothing out of the ordinary. Trying to get them out of society would not be easy, and could in fact be dangerous. Further, where the societies I know relied on police for law enforcement, people in the US are more willing and more used to taking the law into their own hands. Changing that, if one wanted to, would mean to change the availability of law enforcement and the mindset of the public first of all.

So, in conclusion, both work only hand in hand with the mentality of each society. Thinking an outright ban would solve problems in the US is just as ridiculous as thinking that liberating gun laws in Europe or Japan would be doing the general public a favour.

I'm like you Cabra, I live in a society where guns are fairly strictly controlled. I've come to understand that the mindset in the USA is very different & what works there doesn't necessarily work here. Having said that, I still think strict gun laws are ideally the way to go.

I sympathize. My Sociology professor was a surly, thick-accented Portugese fellow who, while somewhat easy to understand, made understanding periodically difficult by injecting foul language at random points in his sentences.

...ahh the good old days.

He's a lovely man (in more ways than one...), but he uses interjections that are very... foreign to me, and they make it hard to sort his message out. I can tune out the 'like' and 'uh' and 'you know' interjections that Americans use, but his are just so... odd. Plus, I know pretty much everything he's trying to teach right now, so.

It was very hard for me not to get extremely snarky in class today as he asked how the English language came about. Somehow I doubt "A language invented by Norman mercenaries to seduce Saxon barmaids" would have gone over well.

I'm like you Cabra, I live in a society where guns are fairly strictly controlled. I've come to understand that the mindset in the USA is very different & what works there doesn't necessarily work here. Having said that, I still think strict gun laws are ideally the way to go.

Same here, but you first need some sort of basis both in the public mindset and in the police services. Otherwise you're just dangerously destabilising the situation.