This is a post of criticisms. But I want to say first that although Empire ended up being possibly my least favorite book of Mr Card, he is still one of my favorite fiction writers, up there with Larry McMurty, Gary Jennings, and Grace Chetwin. So I hold him to a higher standard than most writers.
Stylistic issues: The book is already dated because of the references to 24, American Idol, O'Reilly and such. The Mechs and hoverbikes were unbelievable. As was the draining and filling of the lakes. That would require an incredible amount of power and would take much longer than is depicted in the book. I blame the fact that the book was also made into a videogame. And this is probably not an issue with most readers, but I dislike it when Mr. Card imbues his characeters with idiosyncracies and very specific opinions that he possesses. I probably only recognize them because I read all of his articles, but it takes me away from the characters and makes me think instead about the author who created them. Many instance in this book, but the one that I always think of is in one of the Shadow books, when a character moves a shopping cart out of a parking lot in an attempt to do some small part in helping society along. OSC mentioned doing that in one of his articles once, and that is such a strange thing to do (I mean, the store has people who do that already! Help society some way else, like by writing really goood books!)
Ambiguity: What really happened? What did Torrent actually do? Was he behind the assassination? And if his plan involved just influencing the people who attended his seminars and classes, well, it's a miricle it ever happened at all. Seriously, Verus was playing directly into Torrent's hands because he attended a few of his seminars?
One continuity error: When Cole is having dinner at Ruebens house, he says something about how his parents still make him leave the room when they talk about important things, and then later during on of his 1st person chapters he's thinking about how his father died of cancer after months of chemotherapy.
I disagree with what OSC says in the afterword about how those on both ideological sides have an array of views that do not have a common denominator. Most of them are in fact linked. For instance, I am against pornography, abortion, affirmative action, homosexual unions, higher taxes, an open border, and the U.N. Seemingly unrelated issues, but I there is a common thread: logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history. I think that the way the myriad liberal viewpoints are grouped together stems from some different logical basis as well.
I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints. This is evident (to me, at least) in the fact that soldiers, older persons, and the working class are more likely to be conservative. Nothing like a dose of reality (i.e; war and the genral hardships of life) to make you see the world clearly. College students and pampered celebrities are generally more liberal, because they can't or refuse to see the world as it really is. Liberals don't see the degradation of society because of the values they espouse. They don't see the coming destruction that they are bringing upon us. I don't atrribute them with evil intentions, quite the opposite. I think that they have, in fact, the best of intentions: freedom from oppression and equality. But you know what they say about what the road to hell is paved with. Look at the fruits of their labor since the sixties. We have some improvements, such as racial equality and environmental awareness. But look at how bad things are getting. An increasing inability to defend ourselves from aggressors and to protect our national interests. The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia. Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to. The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm. And perhaps the greatest evil in all of human history: legalized abortion. Many of you will probably read this list and say most of them, "I think that's a good thing." And that is the problem. Our values have been turned upside down.
Of course, I could be wrong in my analysis, and I know this because I've changed and refined my opinions many times in the past. But this is another character trait that I think conservatives are more likely to possess, because of the wisdom aspect. The downside of this is that we consrvatives are more likely to let our doubt be overshadowed by the fanatism of the left. That is why there are so many people walking free today who in different times would be in prison for treason or sedition. And this is why millions of children every year in america are being killed in the womb. And... I think I've ranted enough.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am against pornography, abortion, affirmative action, homosexual unions, higher taxes, an open border, and the U.N. Seemingly unrelated issues, but I there is a common thread: logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history.
*laugh* My friend, if you think people who hold the opposite opinions on the issues are necessarily lacking in logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history, you are precisely the sort of person that the book is meant to be warning about.
Essential to actual respect is the recognition that the people who disagree with you on those points are actually capable of logical thought, critical analysis, and historical reflection.
quote:I know this because I've changed and refined my opinions many times in the past. But this is another character trait that I think conservatives are more likely to possess, because of the wisdom aspect.
While I don't feel the need to address the rest of your post in any detail, it's worth noting that most studies demonstrate exactly the opposite; that those who self-identify as "liberals" are more likely to change their opinions on specific issues frequently over their lifespan, while those who self-identify as "conservatives" are much, much less likely to do so. It may be that conservatives start out as liberals until their opinions "settle," but I don't know if any study specifically addresses that point. At any rate, the statistical likelihood is that anyone calling himself a conservative is less likely from that point forward to change his mind about anything than someone calling himself a liberal. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of debate -- but since you appear to place a certain amount of value on the ability to change your mind, you may want to ask yourself how often you've changed your mind since you started thinking of liberals as logic-proof, unthinking enemies of your value system.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Wow. You are really asking for a flaming with this post, aren't you?
That's okay. I like the toasty warmth of these forums myself
I think that you've hit on an important problem, though. Card, for all that he wants to believe in a moderate political debate as the solution for our national ills, can't quite make the argument. He makes his best argument against "moderates" in his opening chapters, where he describes the students who take the facts of history and the outrageous lies of their professors and try to average them out to find "the truth". Card wants to describe moderation as a good thing...but he just can't make sense of it himself.
The underlying motive isn't just attachment to an attractive label for his own political orientation. Card just doesn't want to accept the fact that we've already passed the point of no return. The crimes committed by both sides are real, and the trials (both in the courts and the media) have a lot to do with which cultural value the accused is believed to have championed. People are already killing and dying in this war, the conflict is just awaiting the point at which one side believes it has the decisive advantage.
Conservatives generally want a bigger advantage before they commit to open battle. They also are at greater risk of losing their "base" if they are percieved as breaking with tradition. But the liberals who demonize them are right about a lot of things...the radical conservatives don't want to compromise and tolerate the inroads that liberals have made. And the liberals aren't willing to stop their advance, they demand complete transformation of the culture, accomplished by the total annihilation of religious and economic freedoms. Neither side is fundamentally willing to compromise because the defining values of each side genuinely demand the abolition of the other.
Who wants to believe that?
I may stand to benefit from such an upheaval myself, but that doesn't mean that I'm insensitive to the suffering and death that will come as a result. I've learned to accept it, even to believe that it is a good thing, in the long run. It doesn't make me happy to have to stand up and tell people "the end is nigh, everything you've worked to accomplish is going to be destroyed". I say it because it's the truth, not because it's all that much fun.
Though...it is, you know Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I haven't really read the book yet (I'm banned from checking books out until I pay a huge fine and since I have to buy books about adoption and I have a thing for old pocket watches and Dir en grey is coming to town, I don't have the money to buy this book yet.)but, I find myself bothered by your statements because there's a certain attitude that seems prevelent that has been driving me insane for as long as I can remember. First of all, liberalism in my eyes is a reaction to the conservatism of the past. If one more person goes on and on about how sweet life was in the 50s and how they long for a return to traditional values my blood vessals in my brain will explode all at the same time. The past was not perfect. Do you realise that civil rights blacks in this country didn't start until 1964? How long were blacks in this country struggling to work under oppression and to live their lives in fear? Centuries and it wasn't until 1964 that the civil rights act was signed into effect. Before that there was tons of violence done to blacks simply because of the colour of their skin and to uphold something that should have dissolved after the civil war! So you had the civil rights movement starting in the 60s, the second wave of feminism and other events that conservatives moan about. Liberalism is a useful thing, but I do not believe that society needs to be free of ALL restraints. What I want is middle ground, and I just can't find it these days. Not with people constantly attacking single mothers or gay people and various other people without a clear and complete view of society! People's lives are hard and complicated. Why must some group of people who are trying to live their lives as best as they can be targeted? I don't agree with abortion, if I was in that position, I doubt I'd take that solution, but it is an agonizing decision and doesn't hurt me nearly as much as gender based infanticide. Conservatives must realize that there never was a golden age! Whether it's ancient Rome, Egypt or America over the ages there never was a perfect golden society where life was perfect and ideal. Even if you have a structured society where everyone "knows their place" there will be a whole heap of people who feel miserable because they are structured at the bottom. Get enough of these people who feel they are at the bottom and their is upheaval and all the people who fear change will talk about how society is falling apart just because society has changed. They need to realize that society for the most part has always had some sort of problem and it's better to address them directly than to go on and on about how the past was better and how things are falling apart because of woman's liberation or gay people! It's really bothering me! Plus I do not think that marriage as an institution is dying. If an institution or country can be destroyed because of a shift in society, does it really deserve to exist? People all around the world will continue to exchange marriage vows and keep them. Some of them might choose to get married in non-traditional ways, but they will continue to do it. They will have children, they will raise them as best as they can. Some may choose to adopt or raise a child on their own. It is their business. Society should concentrate on helping people more instead of condemning them, especially when they do not understand their situation enough! Take gays, how many people KNOW what it's like to be gay and to face the sort of things that gays must face every day. It's really the last frontier in terms of prejudice. I don't think that people should be wanton and decadant and irresponsible or promiscuous. I think conservative values are useful as society needs a foundation, but society also needs to allow for a shift, and that is where liberalism comes in. Perhaps I am naive, but can't we just find a middle ground? Someplace in between conservativism and liberalism where we just do the right thing? Also, I agree, I also dislike when Card does that, but it's really nice for people to move shopping carts out of parking lots. Mostly I dislike when he uses a character to lecture about something such as morality. It bugs me for some reason... But sometimes it works. I have gone on too long... But these things are BOTHERING me.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Tom, read the next sentence I wrote after the one you quoted. As for "most studies," I find that unconvinceing. Show me one of these studies, and then show me that it isn't biased.
Survivor, I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, I also agree with the thesis of Card's book, in that all the moderates don't need to be in full agreement with one side or the other in order for them to have to take sides in the war between two diametrically opposite ideologies.
Synesthesia, your argument is a common one that liberal/progressives use (and I hate labeling like that, but it really is a neccessity in this sort of debate). But most conservatives are not arguing for a return to "segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions" like Ted Kennedy would have you believe. We just want a return to what was good but now is lost. If we could bring back the virtues of the past, to include the condemnation of promiscuity and deviance (including pornography), the punishment of criminals rather than the coddling the get now, and most importantly to me, the outlawing of abortion, as well as reversing the trend of the complete removal of Christianity from the public square, then that is what we would have. But that doesn't mean we would bring back segregation and start forcing people to accept creationism while outlawing the teaching of evolution. It's just that we see how bad things are getting these days, and we have a pretty good idea of what the problem is.
And before you start telling me how we're all wrong, TomDavidson, entertain the possibility that your side is wrong. And since this is a democracy, why can't we put these things to a vote? Why must you progressives circumvent the democratic process by putting all these issues before a bunch of unelected judges? The only explanation I ever hear for that is that the democratic process doesn't protect the rights of the minority. Well, enforcing the rights of the minorites, when those rights are in direct conflict with the rights of the majority, is not a better alternative.
This is why we have free speech. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to use that freedom to convince the majority that what they want is what is best. Then when it goes to a vote, majority rules. Instead, we have the judiciary legislating our morality for us, and causing a huge rift within the population and making the majority feel oppressed.
And before someone points out the slim margins between how people feel on both sides of most issues, keep in mind that most people belive what they are told without examining the issues for themselves. This can be obsevered how when the courts say that something is a right, the numbers immediatly swing in favor of the decision. For instance, before Roe vs. Wade, a large majority of people were opposed to abortion. But when the "right" to have an abortion was invented by the courts, that majority immediatly started disappearing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think I equated conservatism with a return to segragation and back alley abortions. Reread what I said. i said that conservative values are important, but we need middle grond. Say, in the case of coddling criminals. Violent criminals, people who abuse children and rapist in my view should get the book thrown at them. But, criminals who have a first time offence such as drugs or stealing really should be rehalitated instead of being thrown with the aforementioned violent criminals where they will come out more violent. I don't think that condemning a young woman for getting pregnant and making her feel guilty while ignoring the person who helped get her in that condition helps either. There has to be some better way! The wrong people are often guilty in society. As for abortion, I don't even want to talk about that issue, it frustrates me on several levels.
Also, before making broad sweaping statements (Which I am trying to avoid doing, but if i do, I am sorry) please present EVIDENCE about the decline of society, real evidence instead of just saying things were so much better in the old days because they had their problems too. Saying that things were better in the past and that things are decaying now isn't completely accurate, there are certain things we understand about the world now that would have helped a lot of people 30 years ago or longer (Such as attachment issues in adoption, that's an interesting subject right there.) I prefer to be objective and look at things from both sides since I know so little.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that the way the myriad liberal viewpoints are grouped together stems from some different logical basis as well.
This is the sentence that follows the one I quoted. It suggests that liberals have come to their opinions using a different logical basis, one that does not involve "logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history." You go on to speculate on what you do believe liberals use to make their decisions: "unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints." I believe that this attitude of yours, which strongly reflects a certain predisposition, will make it very hard for you to understand the liberal viewpoint.
quote:show me that it isn't biased
I have no idea how I'd accomplish this. *laugh*
quote: And before you start telling me how we're all wrong, TomDavidson, entertain the possibility that your side is wrong.
Leaving aside the question of what you think is "my side" -- I'm essentially an atheist, pro-life libertarian, FWIW, although I never vote for the LP because they're a bunch of lunatics -- I'll freely admit that there's a possibility that I'm wrong. That's why I think a primary principle of government should be to stay as far away from people as possible, so that it doesn't become necessary to legislate what's "right" or "wrong" and, in so doing, codify that "wrongness" in legislation that just happened to be popular at some point.
quote:Why must you progressives circumvent the democratic process by putting all these issues before a bunch of unelected judges?
I'm not sure where this issue is coming from, but I'll take a stab at it: because certain things, like fundamental human rights, are too important to be left to the majority. Unfortunately, the Constitution is sufficiently vague on what constitute fundamental rights that there's room for disagreement on this point. And the majority, of course, never appreciates being checked.
quote:Well, enforcing the rights of the minorites, when those rights are in direct conflict with the rights of the majority, is not a better alternative.
This would make an interesting thread on the other side of the forum, I suspect. I'd argue that sometimes it IS better to enforce the rights of a minority -- even if so doing infringes on the rights of a majority -- if the impact on that minority is considerably worse than the alternative.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
Empire is one of Card's best books. Y'all just need to chill out a little bit.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
It is a surprisingly complex and ambiguous book. Sorry I can't say more, because Syn hasn't read it yet...my comment would be a real spoiler (but I already mentioned it in one or possibly both of the other spoiler threads).
I say that Card tries to make the argument for moderation, and just can't pull it off convincingly. What I didn't say is that he prescribes it...because I'm far from sure that he does. I know that he wants to believe, and embarks on the formal argument, that moderation is a good thing. But I'm far from sure that he makes that the moral of his story.
That's courageous. It makes for a compelling and frightening book. Card isn't just unsure about whether political moderation is a good thing, he knows that he's unsure and he addresses the underlying problem very convincingly. Anyway, can't say more here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
[quote]Many instance in this book, but the one that I always think of is in one of the Shadow books, when a character moves a shopping cart out of a parking lot in an attempt to do some small part in helping society along.[/quote} I don't remember reading about this in a column. But you do know it was a dangerously low-grade sociopath that did this in the book, right? Was his own description of the good he was doing ironic?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'll read it when I get money and when the library unbans me from checking out books.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is why we have free speech. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to use that freedom to convince the majority that what they want is what is best. Then when it goes to a vote, majority rules. Instead, we have the judiciary legislating our morality for us, and causing a huge rift within the population and making the majority feel oppressed.
I remember when the same arguments were levied against civil rights. Fortunately, it's just as bunk now. Majority rules without question in pure democracies, but democratic republics are designed to prevent, in varying extents, the tyrrany of said majority.
You should probably factor this into your appraisal of such systems of republic but probably never will, preferring to rail against blanket points like the 'legislation of morality' by 'activist judges' and all of that.
quote:For instance, before Roe vs. Wade, a large majority of people were opposed to abortion. But when the "right" to have an abortion was invented by the courts, that majority immediatly started disappearing.
The correlation is obviously causation in your mind.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: If we could bring back the virtues of the past, to include the condemnation of promiscuity and deviance (including pornography)
So. . . you don't think there was pornography in the past, or you don't think there was acceptance of it? Either way, you're wrong. You're idealizing the Good Old Days, when no such time ever existed.
quote:But when the "right" to have an abortion was invented by the courts, that majority immediatly started disappearing.
So the right of a woman over her own body was invented by the courts? I'm not trying to start an abortion debate here, but you seem borderline delusional about most of what you've posted about here.
How old are you, again?
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ...but it takes me away from the characters and makes me think instead about the author who created them. Many instance in this book, but the one that I always think of is in one of the Shadow books, when a character moves a shopping cart out of a parking lot in an attempt to do some small part in helping society along. OSC mentioned doing that in one of his articles once, and that is such a strange thing to do (I mean, the store has people who do that already! Help society some way else, like by writing really goood books!)
Nice to know I'm a strange person. I do that exact thing frequently, and it usually doesn't take me any extra time at all, walking to the store from my car, to take along an out-of-place cart. Gives me something to lean on while walking, too. I don't usually talk about it, but then I'm not setting a scene and describing a character for other people. If Real World people see me doing it, they can think of my character (if anything at all) whatever they please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ABRIDGED EDITION OF RESHPPGECTHGGLOBGLOGLLE's RANT
by sam
quote:How y'all doing! I think Orson needs to get a clue. I'm going to drop a few book spoilers really quick before I get to the real point of my rant. There we go, awesome. Okay, moving on. Why I'm really here is because it's been like two weeks or something since I last cheesed everyone off with my latently offensive positions, and that is far too long a time for me not to be saying something incredulous!
Orson glibly attempted to assert that there is no common denominator between things I agree with and things I disagree with. He's clearly wrong: things I agree with are based on logic and critical thinking, and all things I disagree with are based on liberals being emotional crybaby losers who dislike being restrained from being such morons.
The evidence is all around us! People and demographics I dislike ideologically are dislikable because they haven't got a lick of sense and refuse to observe the fact that they are causing society to crumble around us! Sheesh! Man I tell you what would learn them good is a little bit of war, or maybe even a stern talking-to by their uncle Reshpecktobiggle. I could correct them on all of their faults.
Some of these faults would be easier to correct, like the mistaken idea that homosexuals should be afforded equality in society. Also what is up with women?? I swear, once they got their mitts on that whole 'equality' hogwash, they started being less like the obedient housewives of a hallucinated yesteryear that I personally could respect! Nowadays, they got all these expectations which make them harder to marry. Now a lot of people are reading this and saying "you are crazier than a tinhorn cat in a sack of doorknobs" and that is the problem. Our values have been turned upside-down.
By the way I think it's important I talk about how persecuted the vast majority of religious folk in America are. We're persecuted! By .. commies. And the ACLU. And pornography. I tell you it is not like the good old days like when you could put a dude in the hospital and or prison just for saying or reporting controversial things. Thank God that 'real' conservatives like myself are well aware that we possess a monopoly on good sense and logic and are not about to be suckered by the silly open-mindedness of the crude generalizations that we prop up to lambaste in the name of traditional values.
Now, before this turns into a disproportionally abortion-themed rant, I'd just like to pride myself and give myself a special award for being so refined and capable of changing my opinion often. I'm sure you wouldn't know that I'm capable of change, seeing as how I have blithely repeated many of the same brick-wall axioms which have caused the vast majority of forum readers to stop assuming that I have the capacity for cogent thought, but really I'm just so gosh-darned sensible that people in today's world can't give me the credit I deserve. God bless Henry Wade. Goodnight.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Wow.
That was, like...really shameless.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That last post was pretty good, Samprimary. Looks like you put some time into it. I found itfunny, and disturbingly accurate! (And I should have said spoilers. My fault) To your previous post; the correlation is obviously causation in the mind of anyone who understands human nature. A great and powerful group of nine judges who have been given ultimate authority say something is now a right, and most people who instinctively felt a certain way about something but never really examined why just figured that they must have been wrong. If you think that the shift was merely a correlation, I would suggest that you factor in the idea that everything has a cause, and the most likely one is the one I said. If you think there is a more likely one, I'd like to hear it. EI JT: There was pornography in the past, but it wasn't getting advertised on TV. And I don't think there was the kind of porn there is to day, and it certainly wasn't considered acceptable. As for your tired argument about abortion; the right that was invented was not about a womans body, because it's not her body being killed. It's the body of a separate human baby. You need to be de-programmed. And what difference does it make how old I am? If I'm not the right age in your opinion, will that make it easier for you to dismiss my arguments? (I know, I know, "I don't need it to be any easier to dismiss your arguments.")
Tom: " I believe that this attitude of yours, which strongly reflects a certain predisposition, will make it very hard for you to understand the liberal viewpoint." Just as hard as it is for a liberal to understand my viewpoint. One of the main points that OSC was making I think. Everything else you said... I think you're right. BTW, thanks for not taking this so seriously. Some people need to lighten up. (I find myself saying this everytime I post something, it seems like.) I mean, the issues are real and serious, but this is an internet forum, for heaven's sake! (That being said, I guess I could stand to take my own advice from time to time.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That last post was pretty good, Samprimary. Looks like you put some time into it. I found itfunny, and disturbingly accurate!
Uh.
Accurate? Like how, accurate portrayal of your views, or accurate in truth?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh, and sorry Synesthesia. You seem to be trying to maintain an attitude of moderation, and as usual, the moderate voice is getting ignored. I understood what you were saying. I was just responding to where you said that Conservatives need to realize that there never was a Golden Age.
Sibyl, I don't think you're strange. I just think that what you and Mr. Card do is strange.
Pooka, I don't think he was being ironic. I cant remember where he said it, but it was from either Warwatch or his reviews column and from probably a few years ago.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:That last post was pretty good, Samprimary. Looks like you put some time into it. I found itfunny, and disturbingly accurate!
Uh.
Accurate? Like how, accurate portrayal of your views, or accurate in truth?
Well, the first paragraph, at least.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whew. You had me worried there for a second!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To your previous post; the correlation is obviously causation in the mind of anyone who understands human nature.
This is another sort of those claims -- "anyone who understand human nature believes X," "anyone with a brain believes X," "anyone who knows history believes X" -- that doesn't actually support a position as much as it seeks to discredit the possibility of disagreement.
quote:Just as hard as it is for a liberal to understand my viewpoint. One of the main points that OSC was making I think.
Well, yes. But if you agree with him, then it might behoove you to own up to your own biases, then -- if you think it'd be constructive -- work to ameliorate them. Saying "liberals do it, too" doesn't actually help. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Honestly, Tom. Does any of this really help?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:As for your tired argument about abortion; the right that was invented was not about a womans body, because it's not her body being killed. It's the body of a separate human baby. You need to be de-programmed. And what difference does it make how old I am?
I know, dude. I disagree with you, and your 'logic' is ironclad, so therefore I need to be 'deprogrammed'. Never mind that I didn't state my opinion on abortion (since I am what you pretend to be, that is, a rational and logical being, I can see both sides of an issue) because if I disagreed with you you'd dismiss me as a syncophant (which is what you did, anyway). And if I agreed with you I'd be depressed about the injustice you were doing our beliefs by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying the equivalent of, "You just don't get it" to anyone who does disagree with you.
Your age doesn't change in the slightest how I would consider a lucid and well-reasoned argument, but since yours are neither I was curious about your age. Typically the set of 'I miss the Good Old Days/liberals will be the death of us/people who disagree with me are halfwits!' beliefs you espouse are the work of a high school student with a bad civics teacher. So I was just curious, is all.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Blah blah blah. You didn't state your opinion? You sure sounded like you believed abortion is a womans right to make a decision about her body. The de-programming stems from the fact that anyone who can honestly say that they think killing an unborn baby is primarily a matter of "choice" and only concerns the womans body, and has nothing to do with the fact that a separate human being is being destroyed, that a human heart has stopped beating, well the only conclusion I can allow myself to believe is that you've been brainwashed. The alternative ---that you are an evil person who wants to kill babies-- is unteneble. And although I did say earlier that that I am aware of how I've been wrong before, if there is one thing that I currently do not believe will ever change, it is my opinion on abortion.
And might I point out how complete your lack of self-awareness is? Do you not see how you are doing the exact same things you criticize me for doing? I disagree with you, and so I must be some high school student with a bad civics teacher. At least I admit when I'm being inflammatory and that I'm making arguments from a perspective that is incomplete and possibly going to be modified at some point in the future.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does any of this really help?
I think it can, yes. Civil conversation on points of dissention, even if minds are not changed, can help identify the core issues for reconciliation and divergence.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Besides, this is always the way the debate goes ALWAYS!!!! I make the point I just made ---about it's not woman's body being destroyed, it's the human baby's--- and the subject is changed. As usual, the subject is changed to me. Ad hominim attacks, no matter how effective or even how deserving they may be, do not change the fact that I have yet to hear -not just a reasoned argument, but any argument whatsoever- addressing my point. Just attack the speaker, and distract yourself from the truth of what I said. Deprogramming... it's tough.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I hope so, Tom. You're more optimistic than me. My experience has been that people just get more and more mad at each other. This is probably because of me, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I make the point I just made ---about it's not woman's body being destroyed, it's the human baby's--- and the subject is changed. As usual, the subject is changed to me.
I am also pro-life, and yet this is not my experience. Perhaps it's your approach.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The de-programming stems from the fact that anyone who can honestly say that they think killing an unborn baby is primarily a matter of "choice" and only concerns the womans body, and has nothing to do with the fact that a separate human being is being destroyed, that a human heart has stopped beating, well the only conclusion I can allow myself to believe is that you've been brainwashed. The alternative ---that you are an evil person who wants to kill babies-- is unteneble.
This is definitely the work of a high school student. It's actually an insult to the really sharp high school posters we have here. Abortion is not a zero-sum game, and insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you is either an evil baby-killer or brainwashed is absurd, at best.
quote:You sure sounded like you believed abortion is a womans right to make a decision about her body.
Well, that's settled then. You made an outrageous claim, and because I questioned it that means I'm on the opposite side of the issue from you? You could say, "Gravity makes stuff fall towards the center of the Earth. And I know that, because my TV gets really snowy during meteor showers." Even if I don't doubt your premise I'll damn sure have some pointed questions about how you arrived at that conclusion. Broken clock and all that.
quote:...do not change the fact that I have yet to hear -not just a reasoned argument, but any argument whatsoever- addressing my point.
Why would anyone waste their breath composing a reasoned argument for someone who'll just ignore the parts they don't agree with, play the martyr, and try to marginalize them for disagreeing with the gospel according to Resh?
quote:Do you not see how you are doing the exact same things you criticize me for doing? I disagree with you, and so I must be some high school student with a bad civics teacher.
You haven't disagreed with me -- you've disagreed with the imaginary me; the cardboard cutout that you painted with the giant 'liberal!' brush. You've attributed beliefs and values to me that I've never stated, and then gotten defensive. Honestly, I don't blaim you for being defensive. My question about your age was legit, but so is my disdain. I didn't say you were a high school student because of your beliefs. Plenty of people I like and respect are pro-life -- they're just smart enough not to assume everyone who's pro-choice is either brainwashed or a baby-killer.
Or, at least they're smart enough not to say it out loud. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I wonder if you realize that you are still attacking me instead of trying to defend your position. About abortion, I mean. And since it is always the same, without deviation, it reinforces my belief that no one really can defend a pro-choice stance without using dishonest tactics. Not even to win the argument, but to continue believe what they do. I am convinced that pro-choicers are brainwashed, and they do the brainwashing themselves. Because how could you live with yourself if you even entertained for a moment the idea that abortion really is the killing of a person, and not just a person, but a little innocent baby. Scissors in the skull; take THAT, infant! But it's not an infant, it's a "fetus." That's not even a human, it's barely a thing! A fetus. Just a part of the womans body. Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You better hope there isn't a God you're gonna have to answer to.
Tom, as is evident from what I just wrote, it is my approach. But only online, of course. I'm actually a pretty likable and tactful guy in person. It's just that it doesn't matter online, and if even if it didn't, I really wouldn't care.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am glad that you are very willing and capable of reinforcing your own belief that it is impossible for people to disagree with you about abortion without being completely dishonest and brainwashed.
The rest of you should be completely ashamed of yourselves. Here you could be agreeing with this perfectly reasonable man (who has logic and reason and critical thinking and history on his side, natch) but instead you had to go ahead and be brainwashed, intellectually bankrupt sheep. In your state, it's simply impossible to give him the credit he deserves.
That we've already been through these arguments with him before, exhaustively, repetitively, never-endingly, unceasingly, unhaltingly, and that a good number of you are probably chewing on your keyboards with frustration over his unwillingness to budge? It is simply your fault. Thank God he's unwilling to let his rationality be swayed by your emotional responses.
God bless yeh, Reshpectrobot. Never change. Even as secularism causes Islam to dominate America and ruin this once-great nation (as you have foretold explicitly) you will stand strong as a bastion of reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's just that it doesn't matter online, and if even if it didn't, I really wouldn't care.
Well, that's honest. But let me parse this for you, in case you're genuinely confused about why you're often treated with disdain. What you just said boils down to "I don't care about you."
On Hatrack, by and large, we DO care about people -- even if we know them only "online" (and most of us actually have met each other in real life). By saying that you aren't interested in maintaining even that level of courtesy, you're saying that you have no interest in participating in the community as a peer; this makes you, at best, a fly-by-night visitor -- and, at worst, an irritant.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I wonder if you realize that you are still attacking me instead of trying to defend your position. About abortion, I mean.
Listen carefully, child. I. have. no. position. on. abortion. None whatsoever. Whenever I start to think about it, I decide that it's not my uterus, hence not my business.
Continue to argue with the imaginary cardboard cutout you've pasted next to my username, who's trumpeting all these views you abhor. Continue to heap pity and scorn on poor 2-d JT, without pausing for even the briefest moment to read what anyone has actually written. Why let the actual words get in the way of a good diatribe, right?
Believe me, if there is a God I have to answer to one day, I feel sure I'll get a big pat on the back for the patience I've displayed for someone I'm not sure has the faculties to be allowed to choose between regular and supersize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Power down, space ranger.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh, I'm seeing all kinds of patience being displayed by you. This is the lack of self-awarness I was talking about (that goes for you too, Sam. If I'm so unreasonable and you are so open-minded, then how come you aren't changing your mind?) I hate to break it to you, JT, but if you think it's not your decision because you are not a woman, you are pro-choice by default. So you do in fact have a position. But if, like me, you don't see an abortion as something being done to a womans uterus and instead see the thing being vacuumed out of the uterus as the thing that has something being done to it, then it all becomes much clearer.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
When did this become an argument over abortion?
I mean, naturally a society that condones the wholesale slaughter of its own children is committing suicide in the long term. But does that really matter? Your society doesn't have a long-term anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Richard, why are you trying to provoke a reaction?
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
because its just too damn funny to read what reshpeck has to say. Even funnier when coupled with the idea that he believes hes rational, logical and continuously being attacked ad hominem.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't know what's going on. Who's Richard?, and did he delete a post, Tom? And exactly how am I not being attacked ad hominum, Ecthalion? Not continuously, sure, but are you reading Sam and JT posts? Or do you not know what an ad hominem is? The proof is in the fact that my point has yet to be challenged.
This is the gist of it: Others: "Abortion is about the rights of a woman and what she chooses to do with her body."
Me: "Abortion is about the unborn child being killed. The child happens to be in the womans womb, but she is not the only person involved. There is a separate person who's life is being ended."
Others: "Reshpectrobot; you're an idiot. You're a high schooler. Your arguments are not lucid and well-reasoned. Why would anyone waste their breath composing a reasoned argument for you when you'll just ignore the parts you don't agree with..."
Me: "But the baby!" It's being killed! It's not a part of the womans body, it is it's own person, its own self. It has no capability to defend itself, and millions of them are being put to death, the vast majority of which are matters of convenience for the woman whose health is not in danger!"
Others: "Listen carefully child. You have no capacity for logic. You don't have the faculty to choose between regular and supersize. What you have to say is just too damn funny. You believe you are rational, logical, and continuously being attacked ad hominem, which is obviously not true."
Have I made my point? Leaving aside the fact that I'm calling some of you brainwashed (when I should instead say "delusional") and that I take a tone of righteousness, which is, to be perfectly honest, partially uninetentional, why are you (the plural you; ustedes) unable to defend YOUR position? Your position seems to be: you disagree with us, and so obviously you are an idiot. Well my position is this: You disagree with me, so you are delusional, and here's why! Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And here's why, I think. In order to address my argument, you must allow what I am saying into your consciousness. And if you do that, you recoil at the horror of what it could mean if there is the slightest chance that I am right. You do this because you are not evil. But you are also very stubborn and do not want to change your mind for any reason, because that would be an admission of weakness. Therefore, when you read my argument, you simply dismiss it immediately, so quickly that it never really enters you head. But you know you are in a debate, so you have to respond somehow. And therefore: "You are an idiot, and you are closed-minded. I've already decided that, so I won't read anything you say, Resh, with even the slightest effort torward understanding, because it's not worth it and there is no point. You are just a child with no capacity for logic or understanding."
Prove me wrong. Take my argument and rephrase it in your own words. Then respond to it. Find what's wrong with it. Do that, and I will admit that I am wrong in my analysis.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry, Survivor, I missed your post. It became a debate over abortion because I'm involved! My pet cause, though that demeans the seriousness of the issue and how I feel about it. It's just a pet cause when I talk about it online with a bunch of people whose opinions I could care less about. I'm not sure why I do it. I guess I just need to come out and say how I really feel about some things from time to time. I'm a journalism major and so I'm surrounded by people like those one meets here, but I want people to like me so I don't act like an ass around them, like here. And when I'm with like-minded people, I end up playing devils advocate on a lot of things. So I'm left with Hatrack. Hatrack, because there are some really smart people here with skills at argumentation (though I'm not seeing much of it here tonight, except by TomD.)
And sorry about the triple post, everybody.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The alternative ---that you are an evil person who wants to kill babies-- is unteneble"
I personally don't think this is untenable, but accurate. That is why I don't argue about abortion or even homosexuality. There is nothing to argue about. Anyone who sees these things as positives are not worthy of conversing with - only taking action against.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are times when I'm deeply ashamed of the fact that I'm anti-abortion.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's just that it doesn't matter online, and if even if it didn't, I really wouldn't care.
Well, that's honest. But let me parse this for you, in case you're genuinely confused about why you're often treated with disdain. What you just said boils down to "I don't care about you."
On Hatrack, by and large, we DO care about people -- even if we know them only "online" (and most of us actually have met each other in real life). By saying that you aren't interested in maintaining even that level of courtesy, you're saying that you have no interest in participating in the community as a peer; this makes you, at best, a fly-by-night visitor -- and, at worst, an irritant.
Totally missed this post. That's a good point. I do care to an extent. I think I was misunderstood, and I think that is because I was unclear.
I have something of a cuastic style in online forums, but I'm really only insulting with people who are insulting to me. They usually start being insulting toward me because they find some of my sweeping generalizations, as they've been called, personally insulting first. My point is, I don't care what people think of my opinions. I mean that I don't think these debates matter, and even if they did matter somehow, and maybe they do, then I wouldn't care about the results (of which there are mostly none< aside from people getting annoyed.)
It's an irony. If everyone would simply admit I was right and that they were hopelessly wrong, then I wouldn't piss everyone off! But then I wouldn't bother posting, either. That's just a joke, but it might be telling. I'm basically posting to get a reaction. I may be condemned for that, but hey, this is a public forum, and no one is required to respond to me!
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There are times when I'm deeply ashamed of the fact that I'm anti-abortion.
I never felt that way until I read this thread. But what do you think happens if I'm against abortion, but for gay marriage? Is action taken against me at half-speed?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "The alternative ---that you are an evil person who wants to kill babies-- is unteneble"
I personally don't think this is untenable, but accurate. That is why I don't argue about abortion or even homosexuality. There is nothing to argue about. Anyone who sees these things as positives are not worthy of conversing with - only taking action against.
Oh come on. The closest I'm coming to that is they have been deceived by evil disguised as a virtue. Pro-choicers and homosexual rights activists believe that they are in support of equality. Pro-choice in the sense that "Men don't have to have babies, and so neither should women." Fighting for equality is a virtue to be sure. But these are not equality issues. The abortion one is obvious, the homosexual one less so.
The argument against homosexuality as an equality issue is that homosexuality can be interpreted as deviance, like pedophilia and bestiality. I don't think it is that bad, myself. Two consenting adults, and all that. I, and a majority in America, just find it to be deviant behaviour and should not be encouraged, and should certainly not be given equal moral footing as heterosexuality. This, by the way, is an issue I can see myself changing my opinion on, unlike abortion. But it would take a lot of compelling argumentation to do that, and I haven't heard much. Some, but not much. But at any rate, the reason there is more backlash against it than it warrants is because we feel we are being forced by law to recognize it as morally equivilent. It is, in this respect, compared to segregation, and that is, for me, the most compelling argument. But there is too much different between the two for that to hold water. For instance, no one can help being black. And maybe a homosexual can't help being attracted to the same sex, but if it is deviant behaviour or harmful to society, then it should be discouraged, like, say kleptomania or drug use.
So, they aren't evil people. As I said in my first post, they actually have good intentions. I just think they are wrong, and I am not convinced by their arguments in defense of their position. Well, I should say that in the case of abortion, the have no defense. They simply have attacks.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This thread should be on the other side. I'll start a new thread over there, linking it to here.
[ January 30, 2007, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by My Alter Ego (Member # 10133) on :
Learning from Life and Loss
I still think about it. I think about her. And I know it was a her.
I think about it still – almost nine years later.
What would it have been like to hold you in my arms? What would it have been like to hear you cry?
I think about it. I know I made the right decision.
Selfish as it seems in and of itself, I was far too selfish for you. I’m not my mother. I couldn’t have been a good Mom as a kid.
Still love you. Still wonder what happens after this chapter is over… Still know what happened in this chapter was right.
I think about her. And I know it was a her. It’s part of my past.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I still think about it. I think about her. And I know it was a her.
Very nice. Giving a baby up for adoption is difficult, but noble given the circumstances.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:(that goes for you too, Sam. If I'm so unreasonable and you are so open-minded, then how come you aren't changing your mind?)
Let's postulate: What would be your response if someone was to come up to you and ask you "If you're so open minded, how come you aren't changing your mind?"
How alike would it be to my response?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm basically posting to get a reaction.
I know. What I'm saying is that it's possible to get reactions that aren't negative, but not through your methods. And by trying to provoke negative reactions in other people, you actually poison the well for those of us who prefer positive communication.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I should have known when I walked into a thread criticizing such a highly political book that the thread itself would be all politics! I, too, had a problem with the book (which I must rate as my lease favorite of Card's), but just at the moment I have more of a problem with the original post!
quote:I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints.
What arrogance!
I find it interesting that you also claim that the conservative viewpoint is the result of years of considering and of changing opinions. I've found just the opposite to be true. I clung to conservatism as a child and teenager because my father believed it and because it was easy to believe something that someone else thought up for me. As I matured and was forced to take a hard look at the real world, I found my view VERY SLOWLY shifting left, one issue at a time.
Because it happened slowly, one issue at a time, I would never put all liberalism in a neat little bundle and try to sell it as a package deal. In fact, I still don't buy all of it. I'm a firm believer in individual freedom and responsibilities -- something that conservative republicans used to espouse. Now they seem to want us to have all of the responsibility with none of the freedom and I won't have that.
quote:it's worth noting that most studies demonstrate exactly the opposite; that those who self-identify as "liberals" are more likely to change their opinions on specific issues frequently over their lifespan, while those who self-identify as "conservatives" are much, much less likely to do so.
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I would also appreciate a source for this information. That way, we can argue over how credible the source is rather than over whether or not we want to believe this.
quote:Look at the fruits of their labor since the sixties. We have some improvements, such as racial equality and environmental awareness. But look at how bad things are getting....The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia.
That you put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same category shows an astounding ignorance of both subjects. The only thing I could argue that they have in common is that neither is becoming more common -- just more talked about. Now let's grow up and set pedophilia aside because you and I both know that no one is in favor of adults having sex with children!
As for homosexuality, no conservative has yet satisfactorily explained to me how two men humping next door effects their life in any way. Yet you seem to think it is part of a package deal that is destroying us, so let me try to dig into the conservative mindset just long enough to find how we can both think logically about this and yet come to different conclusions. (You see, I'm not so arrogant as to believe I'm the only one who thinks about this logically.)
The trouble with this (and many other issues) is that the disagreement stems from two wildly different sets of underlying assumptions about the world. Conservatives are right that homosexuality is destroying our society as long as they define that destruction in terms of change. Things are not now as they once were. This has always been a tenant of conservatism -- that things should stay the same. I also perceive a desire from conservatives that people should do what we expect them to do and not be wildly different from a set social norm. If you take all these assumptions as true, then homosexuality needs to be stamped out.
But this is where the freedom is lost in the old "individual freedoms and responsibilities" party. Alas, the democrats are lacking the responsibility part, so I will continue to deny membership in either party.
quote: Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to.
And here I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you've gone the wrong way with it. I am disappointed with the fruits of the sexual revolution, but for vastly different reasons. I'm glad that we are not chained down by our gender roles as we once were, but now we seem to be chained by other things. We've given men permission to love us and leave us, requiring us to take on the responsibility of both traditional gender roles in order to raise our children. Moreover, the pendulum has, in many cases, swung the other way and women who would choose to embrace the traditional gender role are looked down upon for that choice. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for one income households to make ends meet, giving women no choices at all.
But I won't stand by and agree that because there are some kinks in the progress, that all of liberalism is wrong or even to blame.
quote:The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm.
I always laugh when I hear people suggest that religion is being persecuted. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. I still see atheism and agnosticism being frowned upon and treated as dirty. I don't think modern Christians know what persecution is. You said you've read history...check out the part about being fed to the lions. If atheists start doing that to you, I'll fight on your side. In the meantime, the atheists and agnostics I know at best just want to be left alone and at worst are no threat. They have no community of like-minded individuals (a church) to cling to for strength and support.
*******************************
I haven't had a chance to really think about this stuff in ages. Usually, people don't want to talk about it. I can get my husband to talk about it, but he agrees with me on most of it so it's just not the same. Thanks for the opportunity. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Christine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They have no community of like-minded individuals (a church) to cling to for strength and support.
Not exactly true. There are lots of support groups for athiests.
Just google the term "athiest support groups."
Now, as far as real-life communities...I thought California and New York were declared athiest-friendly zones?
Oh, yeah:
:devours Christine:
Welcome to Hatrack. You taste like strawberry milk.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Scott, you may be right, but here in the bible belt it feels a bit lonely not to embrace Christian beliefs. Plus, since I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, those groups wouldn't apply to me.
Which brings up another problem with non-Christian (I suppose I should say Judeo-Christian) viewpoints...they are not consistent or organized. There is no creed and no leader.
But I at least partially accept your stance so I will rephrase to say that there is less support and community for non-Christians than there is for Christians.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you Google the term "atheist support groups," the first hit is a list of groups in Tennessee, one of which is an atheist club. The other hits on the first page are all discussions of whether or not Alcoholics Anonymous is "atheist-friendly," or whether practical atheist alternatives exist. It isn't until the fourth page that we encounter a group which exists to support people in atheism, as opposed to a support group for people with a problem who also happen to be atheists.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Others: "Abortion is about the rights of a woman and what she chooses to do with her body."
Me: "Abortion is about the unborn child being killed. The child happens to be in the womans womb, but she is not the only person involved. There is a separate person who's life is being ended."
"Others" also believe that the fetus is not a separate self until certain conditions are met, and that until that state is reached the mother's wishes are paramount. The question is not the mother's rights. The question is when does that bundle of cells become a self?
If you believe at conception, then of course you are against abortion. If you believe at a later time, then you may be willing to accept abortion before that time. The rights question can only be answered when the self question is settled.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you believe at conception, then of course you are against abortion. If you believe at a later time, then you may be willing to accept abortion before that time.
That's actually not true. There's at least one person on this board who thinks that at least some abortions result in the death of a fully human person who still opposes a ban on those abortions. (I'm being vague about the exact time frame, but there is definitely overlap.)
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Is it me?
I believe that a human embryo is fully human from the moment of conception, but I'm against a ban on abortions. I do think that abortions should be very rare, and the fact that they aren't is of serious concern as an indicator of the morality of society. Efforts to "legitimize" abortion have definitely had a negative impact on that morality, but I don't believe that they are totally or even primarily responsible for the decay.
After all, allowing abortions in the event of rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother is something that very few people will argue over. I know women who feel privately that they'd rather not have an abortion in even those cases, but few of them want to impose that decision on anyone else. And that argument is extensible on the other side. I have a hard time saying that there should be some kind of bright-line between an action that is fully legal and one that requires proscecution.
Which is why I think that the debate over the legality of abortion is pointless. The problem isn't that it's legal, the problem is that there's so damn much of it.
But your society really does have more pressing issues. Even if we factor in all the root causes of abortion, those aren't going to destroy your civilization for another several decades, possibly a century or more. So why all the fuss about it when you may have only months left?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:allowing abortions in the event of rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother is something that very few people will argue over.
My youth pastor actually did argue over that, claiming (and I haven't been able to google anything to back it up) that even after rape, it takes a few days for conception to occur, and that a girl should see the doctor immediately to prevent pregnancy before conception.
I abhor the practice of abortion, but do not believe there should be any legislation or governement intervention on the issue, meaning I don't think there should be federal funding for abortion centers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So why all the fuss about it when you may have only months left?
I was actually going to respond to something you said in that last post, but then I got to the end and saw that you tacked this crap on the end of your post (yet again), and I decided against it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Launchy -- what your youth pastor told you has several problems with it. First of all, serious danger to the mother can occur at any point in the pregnancy, but I think he was probably focusing on rape or incest. In both of these cases, I think it demonstrates a profound lack of sensitivity to suggest that a woman who has just been raped should then proceed to make a purely logical decision. Many times in the wake of such a crime a woman is scared, confused, and alone. Often, these crimes occur by someone she trusted and fears.
Once you get past that, you get to the problem that the "morning after" methods are just as heavily debated as abortion itself! If life begins at conception, then those, too, are wrong. The idea you and your youth pastor are proposing seem to take a "life begins an implantation" approach which, to be honest, is more in line with where I fall but it is still a political hot bed.
I, too, am one who believes that life begins before birth (with a viable implantation, actually, which is a bit unusual), but I do not want to see legislators tell us whether or not we can get an abortion or under what circumstances. I know what *I* believe but it is based at least as much on faith as anything else. Others disagree and I would not be so arrogant as to use the law to force them to my way of thinking.
I don't like the abortion rate. I think it may be part of a larger problem, though, and that the way to handle the situation is through community and not through the law. Unplanned pregnancy can be a long, lonely road with little encouragement and lots of judgment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Others disagree and I would not be so arrogant as to use the law to force them to my way of thinking.
My problem with that is that we seem to have no problem using the law to prevent murders in other situations. If someone genuinely doesn't believe that, say, a handicapped individual is a human being by his or her criteria, does that mean that we have no business passing a law that says otherwise?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Tom...I started on a much longer explanation that would have addressed that point and then deleted it. I guess I shouldn't have.
Discussions of what constitutes "human" are somewhat interesting but more often circular. The government is charged with keeping law and order. A society cannot function if citizens are given leave to kill one another. Some people think it is okay to kill anyone at all, but these are not reasonable people.
There are many reasonable people who do not believe that a fetus is human yet. And I'm going to botch this part but I'm going to say it anyway...the life or death of a fetus as determined by its own mother is not a matter of law and order. It is strictly a matter of morality.
As for handicapped people...well, there have been societies that have taken the attitude that they should die. I would be surprised if the reasoning was that these people were not human, though. I would be more inclined to believe that they were a drain on society and that, having so little, they could not afford to sacrifice for people who could not produce. We have the luxury of having plenty and so our decisions about what to do with people who cost more than they produce can be based on something more than basic necessity and expediency.
Anyway...keep it coming. It's always helpful to have to refine my position. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:
quote: I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints.
quote: What arrogance!
It's a problem: how to point out that you think you're right (which, by definition, you do), without sounding arrogant.
It can be hard sometimes, but I'd say the first thing to do (and the biggest problem I had with what I quoted) is not to come straight out and call your side wise, experienced, and logical while calling the other side impulsive and rash. If you can find a logical support for your argument, you can say these things *without* saying them -- but therein lies the key. Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Well, it is legal to withhold medically necessary care from people who will die without it, as long as you can show that such care represents an undue burdan on yourself. Whether or not it should be is another issue entirely.
I don't see the legality of abortion as being the main problem, that's all. That would be true even if it weren't for the fact that it isn't the most pressing issue facing your civilization. I'd recommend some way of encouraging people to reserve sex for relationships which were ready to take on the responsibiilties of parenthood.
But then, I also don't think that overt acts of homocide need to be as illegal as they are now, so maybe you can do as mph does and ignore my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:There are many reasonable people who do not believe that a fetus is human yet. And I'm going to botch this part but I'm going to say it anyway...the life or death of a fetus as determined by its own mother is not a matter of law and order. It is strictly a matter of morality.
Governments have often legalized murder, while maintaining law and order. I'd cite some, but I think it would invoke Godwin's Law Suffice it to say that I am quite happy to live in a country where maintaining "law and order" is not the only consideration when determining what should or should not be illegal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
But in 2D grayscale. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Puppy -- I would say that a government that legalizes murder does not EVEN have law and order in mind when deciding laws. Governments themselves have been known to try to reign with an iron fist, but they don't tend to last long.
(I did tell you I would mess up what I was trying to say, didn't I? )
Of course there is more to lawmaking than law and order, but legislating on morality alone (while done) goes against the tenets of a free society. So I guess before I get myself in more trouble I should ask, for Puppy or anyone else who cares to answer...under what principle of the role of government should abortion restrictions be enacted?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:under what principle of the role of government should abortion restrictions be enacted?
Protection of the individual from external harm.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
You're going to have to define individual here, because I'm really struggling with it. I ate chicken for dinner last night; was that chicken an individual?
Of course, I'm sure you mean human, but then you get back to one of the fundamental problems with the abortion debate: When does human life begin? We (society) can't agree. Shall you define it for them?
One other reason I can think that "protection of the individual from external harm" does not work is that it can be applied to the mother as well. It's not easy to be pregnant and have a baby. I did it because I wanted my son and love him. I thank God I was never put in the position of having to choose to carry a baby I did not want or worse -- one that was the result of rape. I'm not sure if my personal conviction that an unborn baby qualifies as human would have stood up to that after the migraines and nausea took hold -- and that's just the first month.
So basically, my problem with "protection of the individual from harm" is that the definition of individual is murky and that even if the unborn baby qualifies, there are two individuals being harmed.
Is there another basis for outlawing abortions?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There have been societies, including ours, which have decided that "protection of the individual from external harm" doesn't apply in their case because [insert ethnic group here] aren't really humans.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm not clear on the connection, to be honest. Humanity as a whole is capable of some pretty egregious acts that we sometimes rationalize, but just because the argument has been used in the past as rationalization for terrible atrocities does not make it an invalid argument in the here and now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Humanity as a whole is capable of some pretty egregious acts that we sometimes rationalize, but just because the argument has been used in the past as rationalization for terrible atrocities does not make it an invalid argument in the here and now.
Why not?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Because the logic doesn't work.
"I'm fat. I need to lose some weight." -- works great if you're 300+ pounds, not so great if you're a 60-lb anorexic. The anorexic is rationalizing. The 300+ lb person is not.
"They aren't really human." -- works great if you're discussing using lab rats for scientific research, not so great if you're talking about Jews in World War II.
Just because something is a rationalization in one context does not mean that it is in another. The argument is entirely illogical. Context is everything here.
To put it another way...All you said was that you don't believe humanity is limited by ethnic group and you implied that most reasonable people nowadays would not limit humanity in this way. Great. I agree. That doesn't mean that humanity can't be limited by something else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The logic works because you said that one of the problems with protecting individuals from external harm was identifying what the word 'individual' means.
Other societies have killed people we consider to be human individuals.
Our society kills fetuses, which some people consider to be human individuals.
All you've done is assert that it's okay to continue aborting fetuses, because we can't agree on whether or not they're human.
To me, that's a rather flimsy justification for murder.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
Nope, not working for me! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
The alternative would be -- to use your example -- to continue massacring Jews until we could provide definitive proof of their humanity.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Who said anything about definitive proof?
I can't help but notice that all of you are trying to sink this discussion in peripheral details and avoiding the main crux. Let me see if I can steer us back before we drown in B.S.
Q. Under what rule of law should abortion be outlawed?
A. Protection of the individual from external harm.
Q. What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
A. ????
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
If you can answer this definitively, you've managed to resolve, like, three thousand years of legal history.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
We can consider possibilities. Is it OK to fire your rifle blindly into a house, because you don't know for sure that anyone's home? Is it good to torture a humanlike figure to death, because you aren't absolutely sure the figure is a person? That should be enough to prevent elective abortion, but not one needed to save the life of the mother.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
1. The rights aren't clashing. Your statement, that "2 individuals are harmed" is a misleading one, in that it equalizes the amount of harm being done to both parties at the extremes of the scenario. However, an honest look at the situation will reveal that the quantitative harm is NOT equal: women, in America, generally ALL survive their pregnancies, and recover within weeks.
Almost no fetus lives through an abortion.
In what way are these two "harms" equal, as you seem to imply?
2. In terms of individual rights, I'm glad to be on the liberal side for once: applying the right to life to as many human beings as possible. I rarely get to claim a liberal stance for anything; thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:If you can answer this definitively, you've managed to resolve, like, three thousand years of legal history.
Yes! Exactly! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So what's the harm in erring on the side of caution?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
For me or for everyone else? Because I already said, I believe the fetus is alive. I could be wrong, but I personally would err on the side of caution. (And BTW, I think that is the best argument you've made yet. I have been tempted to make it for you but I decided to wait and see if you'd get there. )
For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
Edit: deleted with apologies
[ February 01, 2007, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Have you ever seen a crack baby? Or one with fetal alcohol syndrome?
I personally know one of each who would take great personal exception to the idea that someone would think them better off had they been aborted.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
That was ill-said. I apologize. I was thinking of the destruction that a mother could do to an unborn fetus without aborting it and in some cases, the death comes, but later. That is the case I knew of personally and was thinking of. I should have considered it a little more before I posted that.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
I fully support public money going towards educating women of these facts before having consentual sex, which is the case in over 99% of all pregnancies.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision.
This may simply be semantics, but the fetus (if you insist) is quite obviously alive. I've never heard anyone claim the contrary in a debate such as this.
Second, given the many methods of birth control available to any budget, and that the vast majority of pregnancies are caused by a choice, the number of unwanted pregnancies should be approaching zero in the modernized world.
Third, given that the fetus is genetically identical to a human at the time of conception, it is disingenous at best to fault anyone for referring to it as a baby. The only difference between a "fetus" newly conceived and a baby just delivered is about nine months of growth.
Or would you argue that a man who has lost his arm is no longer human because he doesn't look like one?
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
What about a man who has lost most of his higher nervous functions?
Look, I'm not in favor of abortions. I just don't see banning them as being the solution to any of the problems we have. Restricting them? Sure, I can see the logic of making it illegal for doctors to perform the overt act which kills the child, which would naturally restrict what kinds of abortions you could legally carry out. Making a real effort to educate the public about the specific medical details of what abortion is and what it does? Sure, all this "letting the air in" business is silly.
But simply banning it won't fix anything that's really wrong with our society. I don't like abortion myself, but laws against it are like laws against suicide...silly in their fundamental concept. Christine has pointed that out, I suppose. She has done so without the tact or clarity that might have made her point, but it's a valid point. I have no sympathy to spare for people who kill themselves. I have none for women who deliberately kill their own children. But you have to be sane about the laws you make and whether they can be enforced practically.
Even assuming that we could enforce such a law, I don't think all abortion should be illegal, anymore than I think that it should ever be mandatory. I may disagree with someone on what specific proceedures should be illegal, but I don't think that disagreement is important compared with other issues.
For instance, the agreement that abortion is generally a bad thing and we should be finding ways of reducing the demand for it. I think many opponents of the culture of abortion fall on opposite sides of the debate because the debate is framed in terms of legality rather than morality.
Maybe I just don't care about legality because that entire part of the system is about to crash and burn. Or maybe there are just too many things that have been determined to be legal which I find deplorable, or things that are illegal which I think would be good (at least for some people). Whatever.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
God, I've been so sick. I'm sure everyone missed me.
I want to clarify something about the arrogance thing. I don't know that I'm right about any of my opinions, I only think I am. I do know the difference. And Tom made the best argument against allowing abortion, and the one I adhere to the most, because it is most logical. If there is a slight posibility that abortion at any stage is murder, then I wouldn't want to be guilty of having an abortion, performing an abortion, supporting abortion, or voting for someone who supports it. And since there is no way of knowing that the fetus is not a human, I believe the only reasonable and logical option is to outlaw it, as it is society's and the government's duty to protect the defenseless.
This to me, is unassailable logic. I challenge anyone to find a flaw in it. If you can, I will never argue the pro-life side again. Bringing up "women's choice" or "what about rape, incest, or deformities" does not address the logical construct. Nor does "your arrogance and bad attitude obscures your point," as I have heard ad nauseam.
And because of the complete logical supremecy of this argument, and a slew of others that are "conservative," it is for this reason that I feel I can make statements like "I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints." Notice the use of "personally believe" and "based more in widom/impulse..." Now if someone wants to argue that I shouldn't make statements like that because it is rude and does not promote the discussion, you will probably win that one without a fight. I just ask that I not be misinterpreted, and I would like that people recognize that I am really not intentionally trying to offend, usually. Exceptions abound. Things just come out a certain way sometimes, and I tried to keep it in check a while, but it was too tiring, it interfered with my point, and people ignored me. I'm not posting all this so people can skim and move on, not remembering what I said or that I even said anything. As I said before, I'm looking for a reaction. And my natural, offensive style seems to get results. In turn, I let people's intentionally insulting comments toward me slide, and I engage their points (with the occasional verbal jab.) It's fun!! I'm pretty sure that if you read this thread with that in mind you will see that to be the case.
[ February 02, 2007, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Well, since I started with a pro-life viewpoint and wisdom and experience drove me to a pro-choice viewpoint, I can't see your argument as valid. As for the unassailable logic...well, I could assail it but I remembered why it was that I stopped talking about this subject. Both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions. Any assaults I made on your logic would stem from my assumptions, and be entirely unreasonable in your world. If there is one thing that wisdom has taught me it's that arguments are won or lost in the underlying assumptions that are rarely (if ever) discussed.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid. It is possible that your reasons for changing were flawed. And since I find the logic for being pro-life, as I set it up, to be unassailable, I must conclude that your reasons were in fact flawed. Doesn't mean I'm right, it just means that it will take some kind of deconstruction of the logical framework I am working from in order to change my mind. And the simple assertion that my logic is assailable without pointing out how isn't going to cut it.
I agree with you when you say that "both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions." I just think that the assumptions for one are wrong and the assumptions of the other are not. The only assumptions I make are 1) we cannot know that a fetus is not a human, and 2) it is a governmental and societal responsibility (morally) to protect the defenseless. In order to deconstruct this argument, you would have to show that one or both of those assumptions are false. It's as simple as that.
edit: added (morally), as this is an important distinction
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I think that the underlying assumptions of the abortion debate are usually pretty clear, if completely pointless. Christine doesn't assume that the fetus is "human", you assume that it should be considered human until proven otherwise. I don't care about the "humanity" of the fetus one way or the other.
My underlying assumption is that it simply isn't practical to outlaw abortion in this day and age, it is simply too easy for educated women in our modern society to reliably abort their own pregnancies. Unless you want to turn every miscarriage into a criminal investigation, you might as well leave abortion (of some types, at least) legal and concentrate on finding other ways to encourage changes in the sexual and moral culture.
My other assumption is that almost none of the current laws are going to survive the coming extinction crisis, and thus it doesn't matter a good damn what the laws are. But even if you don't believe such a thing is about to happen, my first posited assumption bears examination.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You keep making that point, Survivor. I actually agree with you. We are not long for this Earth. But that doesn't excuse immorality in the meantime. And even if we couldn't enforce the law (and I think we could), at least we wouldn't be actively condoning something as awful as abortion and our own suicide.
By the way, I just finished responding to Kwea's highly insulting post on the other thread that this one is linked to. I know some of my statements are found to be offensive by some, but I don't actually set out to insult anyone here. I try to keep my "sweeping generalizations" impersonal. So how come blatently offensive and insulting attacks on me are excused but I get called on anything I say that can be interpreted ---correctly sometimes, but not always--- negatively?
Could it be because I am found to be genuinely threatening? Maybe I'm wrong and arrogant to think this, but I'm taking it to mean that my arguments are in fact so strong that I must be attacked. Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them? If O'Reilly really is just a blowhard and Bush really is just an idiot, then why would people actively try to destroy them? I'm not equating myself with them, but I think the principle is the same.
[ February 02, 2007, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I think it's more because you don't seem open to changing your mind. Thus they see no advantage in not antagonizing you in the hope that you'll go away (or commit suicide, I've had that suggestion thrown my way a couple of times ).
In a larger sense, I think that it is Card that the camper-trolls on this forum regard as a threat. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't be camper-trolling his forum, eh? By driving off or subverting Card's native fanbase, they hope to both reduce his popularity and to convince him that he's insane for writing the kinds of things he writes.
I think that mostly they just succeed in making fools of themselves, but they do seem to have caused some pretty serious emotional conflicts for a few good people. All in the service of humanism, I suppose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lest anyone wonder whether Richard's speculations might in fact be accurate, let me remind them that he claims to be a member of an inhuman species dedicated to the extermination of our own. In fact, he's repeatedly asserted that he has little understanding of and no sympathy for human motivations. So that might help you measure exactly how accurate his suggestions on that front might be.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid.
My only point in saying that I went from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint was to counter your point that age, wisdom, or experience had anything to do with this. I don't assume that I am definitely right as you do.
As for the underlying assumption, you are missing the most important one. You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them?
It's because of their power and influence that they worry people. The loudest talking idiot can often convince people who are likeminded into following them down whatever harebrained path they're headed towards.
quote:You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Beyond that, he's assuming that he is somehow smart or privileged enough to access this truth and that anyone who disagrees with him is not.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Okay...but if there isn't some absolute truth in this world, then what is the point of getting so worked up over an assertion that you believe is incorrect?
You think that you're right and he's wrong, that's why you're arguing. Saying that there is something inherently wrong with his belief that the things he believes are the truth doesn't bear even the thinnest examination unless you can demonstrate that there is something objectively wrong with those beliefs themselves, not simply the fact that they are believed.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks Survivior. I don't care if you're not human. I think you're nice.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I think you're nuts Well, maybe you're using a definition of "nice" that has more to do with physical grace and perfection, but you wouldn't really be able to judge that from posts on the internet.
Or could you?
Besides, my body is designed more for practicality than aesthetics. I prefer to think of it as "rugged". Like my personality Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Our values have been turned upside down.
Whose values? And why is their overturning a bad thing? And why are these values better than any others?
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
On abortion, yes, it's a moral as well as religious issue. At the moment I don't think that the government should intervene either way, to fund abortion clinics or prohibit it. This is for my own reasons and based off my own experience.
After a day spent at a conference concerning human trafficking and poverty though, I wonder why we're so concerned about the, maybe thousands of abortions that take places as opposed to the 10s of thousands of bona fide (no debate about whether or not their indivduals) humans, many infants and children, who die from hunger or conflict (or are enslaved or exploited).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by jlt:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Our values have been turned upside down.
Whose values? And why is their overturning a bad thing? And why are these values better than any others?
Those are the real questions. It turns out that if you don't have the right answers, you get yelled at.
By the way, the number of abortions in America is estimated to be about 1.4 million per year. That's not to downplay the importance of human trafficking and hell, about twenty thousand other problems. Concerning abortion, I think the first step is to convince enough people that abortion actually is a problem in the first place. And not just the problem of "why are their so many unwanted pregancies?" More of the magnitude of "why is our government allowing babies to be killed without restriction?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Watching resh and survivor bounce their personalities off of each other is like some sort of christmas gift.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
The problem with abortion is that it is an issue largely tied to religious beliefs. If a person believes that life begin at conception than abortion seems like murder, but if a person believes that life begins when a person is born then abortion is not murder to them. When the government tries to make laws about abortion, then oftentimes religious beliefs are some part of the law and that means the government is imposing religious beliefs on the population which may or may not share them and violates the separation of church and state.
In countries where abortion is illegal, it happens anyway, but instead of going to a hospital women literally resort to coat hangers. If abortions were made illegal, it's very likely they would continue anyway.
In addition, people often say that people who abort shoul just carry the babies and put them up for adoption, but truly, you have to ask those people if they've adopted any children.
I also think people should realize that for most women the decision to have an abortion is not an easy one. Humans aren't wired to want to give up their children, and women do consider issues before having an abortion and it is rather unfair to make laws implying that women are incapable of making their own decisions. If it is against your beliefs to have an abortion, don't have one (also think that men really should be saying less on this issure considering they don't have wombs and they will never carry a child)
I myself am uncertain of my views on abortion, but I don't think that views I have should be forced upon others. I think the solution to preventing so many unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion is better birth control and better education about how to use birth control, and for education about birth control to be taught at an earlier age.
In my high school, birth control isn't taught until 10th grade and by then many students, in reality, are already having sex. Some suggest trying to teach chastity, but honestly, lessons in abstinence tend to be a complete joke or preaching which just makes teenagers want to rebel more.
I still think that if people concerned about abortion put so much value on human life then they should focus on saving the lives of people who are already born who die all around the world everyday.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
While I don't think it is his worst book, it certainly has some problems. I like the theme, but it seriously falls apart in the realism category. The Mechs and Hoverbikes are unbelievable. The military stuff is obviously written by someone who has not served, and the idea that these guys are cruising around NYC with unregistered class III NFA weapons shows shows a naivety about legal issues concerning firearms or what precisely military folks can get away with. Having carried the SAW myself, I think it's pretty funny that Cole, (Who apparently has an "S" on his chest,) was running for miles with an M249 SAW, (That's the US nomenclature for it, BTW, Minimi is the Euro version.)
The pacing and logic leaps were unbelievably rapid, even for military geniuses. Oh and the part about Washington state courting the rebels simply kills me. Outside of Pugetropolis, this is a red state, and we tote guns. Even inside the sound area, there are scads of libertarians and people like me who are all over the map politically. And dear god, there are a ton of prior service folks up here. Washington is about as pro-military as San Diego, (Which with 14 bases is pretty pro-mil.) I suspect any leftist rebellion would draw the rooftop voters, posthaste. Oregon and Vermont are also both blue states that are not typically Democratic at all. They would not be the ones openly courting secession, I think. I think California would be the most likely candidate, as it has an economy thatcould support sucession, (Though it would be a tactical nightmare to try to defend from the FedGov.)
But aside from the numerous realism issues, the book is still good, and I agree with the basic cautionary tale about polarization, partisanship and cults of personality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I still think that if people concerned about abortion put so much value on human life then they should focus on saving the lives of people who are already born who die all around the world everyday.
It's very nice of you to tell people who think something different than you how they should act. Would you tell someone who opposes the killing of children by frustrated parents that they should volunteer at a day care center rather than favor making such killings illegal?
You also seem to be assuming that it's not possible to care for those who are born while also working to grant legal protection to the unborn, as evidenced by the enormous amount of work done by pro-life people along those lines.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Seriously. That "if you REALLY cared, you'd be devoting your energy elsewhere" thing is the most obnoxious argument EVER. It just brings with it such a huge presumption that one's opponents are hypocritical moral cretins.
Which is useful, I suppose ... it helps me identify irrational individuals who have lost the ability to put themselves in their opponents' shoes.
But still. Next person who uses it gets a pie in the face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Puppy if you really cared you would devote your energy elswwwWWAAHH AAUGH I'M ALLERGIC TO RHUBARB
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
HA HA HA! Mine is an EVIL laugh!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's true.
I've heard it.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Ok, so it's an annoying argument, more importantly, what kind of pie?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rhubarb.
Pay attention!
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Ahhhhhh, rhubarb pie. There's nothing better. Except perhaps rhubarb-strawberry sauce on thick french toast.
*hungry*
quote:Oh and the part about Washington state courting the rebels simply kills me. Outside of Pugetropolis, this is a red state, and we tote guns. Even inside the sound area, there are scads of libertarians and people like me who are all over the map politically. And dear god, there are a ton of prior service folks up here. Washington is about as pro-military as San Diego, (Which with 14 bases is pretty pro-mil.) I suspect any leftist rebellion would draw the rooftop voters, posthaste.
Thank you, Mazer -- that was a bit difficult to swallow in the book -- having been born and raised here (with a taste of WY, UT, and NY just for flavoring). It felt very . . . oh, what is the word I'm searching for . . . surrealistic -- that's it!
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Seriously. That "if you REALLY cared, you'd be devoting your energy elsewhere" thing is the most obnoxious argument EVER. It just brings with it such a huge presumption that one's opponents are hypocritical moral cretins.
That, and the whole "gay people CAN marry" argument both make me go bonkers. Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 10321) on :
The differences in various political and position stances, in my humble though very excellent opinion, stem more from differences in PRIORITIES than from anything else, including logic, information, and upbringing.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I loved Empire because of its message. There were a few unrealistic parts to the story, but this novel was very good. I had for a long time discouraged political party loyalty prioritized before national pride and thankfulness to live in someplace as great as America. From homosexuality to abortion to Iraq to whatever divides the red and blue states, we're all Americans in this, and Empire was one of my favorite books to recommend when I talk to some of the extreme leftist youngsters who seem to have been raised to think of George W. Bush as a wretched lifeless monster.
Empire was, in short, an insightful book, and when I read the original post of this forum, I think part of the reason some people might not like it is that we can't argue with it without exposing ourselves as part of the evil this book warns against. There really were a lot of Star Wars parallels, I might add, which isn't exactly a bad thing, because Star Wars has weaknesses in acting and short-term plot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What do extreme rightist youngsters think, in your opinion?
Posted by TommySama (Member # 9669) on :
What they've been told to Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I lived in areas that don't have many extreme rightist youngsters. Everyone's left-winged, right-handed. I know the rightist youngsters would probably have their own set of negative presumptions about the other wing if I ever met one. I hear about this kind of thing from everywhere in the media. In terms of George W. Bush, which is what I mentioned in that post, it appears according to some of the polls that some either they aren't voting or they don't think the President is on their side. I don't want to make assessments like this based on people I've never met, so I'll try to keep to what I've seen. Look how the media tried to portray Rube and Cole.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*whisper* The fictional media.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I don't know, if people really do start becoming more Republican than American (I said Republican JUST to balance the "extreme leftist" mentions), Empire might not be fictional. Except for the stupid dam that was built for no reason with the water levels changeability and the secret base. And the Princeton guy who takes over the United States. And the very heavy military-grade weapons that just happened to be in the car when the Imperial AT-STs invaded.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).![[Mad]](mad.gif)