However, he still favors abortion on demand being legal.
Problem is, doesn't this sound like the least defensible position to take on the issue -- or at least the most cold-hearted? Consider the following viewpoints on abortion:
1) Some people believe life begins at conception. If they combine a religious viewpoint to this then they must believe the soul enters the body at this time. To believe this implies then that you should be firmly anti abortion since you admit a life is being taken if you do have an abortion.
2) Some believe in using the clinical basis for saying life exists -- either the beating of the heart or the detection of brainwave activity. If, for instance, the lack of brain activity is the clinical definition of death for someone after birth, the presence of brain activity before birth must imply life. Right to Life would never compromise at making abortion illegal at any point past 6 or 7 weeks but a fair number of people would be comfortable with laws that restrict abortion after this point.
3) Then there are the people who say that if a baby could possibly survive outside of the womb then that's the point to make abortion illegal. Logical, but then some babies are born at or around 22 weeks and live while others don't. And with advances in technology this point of survivability may become considerably shorter in the pregnancy. Also, a problem with this is that it basically says if the body of the baby is formed, then the fact that it depends on the mother for food and warmth may not be a good criteria to allow the killing of the little being.
4) Then there are those who say once the baby is out of the womb it is alive. This implies the child's geographical location alone gives a person the right to kill him or her.
Back to Kerry though. Kerry says he believes it's a human being but that it's okay to kill it if that's what the mother wants. I'd be much more comfortable if he took position #4 and then said it's her body but he isn't. He is perfectly aware the child is human but doesn't give a you know what for that being's rights. I know he is merely trying to fish for some forgiving, "open-minded" naive right to life votes who might not take the time to analyze Kerry's true positions on the issues (Kerry's supporters know full well the implications of Kerry's stands) but still...this guy seems totally willing to say anything to get elected.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,
Here's the important part.
Shrug. I believe that the embryo/blastula/morula/fertilized egg is a living thing that isn't "the mother." But I have a separate question of "person" that plays into it. It's more complicated than you pretend it to be.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:However, he still favors abortion on demand being legal.
No, he still favors not making all abortion illegal. There is a big difference there that some people (like you) can't seem to understand. He does not want to make it as simple as ordering a hamburger in Mickey-Dees, he just does not want to create a situation where he is imposing religious beliefs through legislation, which is unethical. Bush, though, has no such qualms about imposing his religious opinion onto federal writ.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually, Kerry's approach is more ethical. Bush's approach to sex ed on the other hand has been proven to lead to disaster.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Even condom packages say that abstinence is the only sure prevention. How does this bear on Bush's right to live philosophy? Is there a link you want to provide on that?
P.S. I can see how if Kerry believes personhood begins at conception, his legal stance would have to allow different views. If I were raped, I want access to emergency contraception.
It will be interesting to see what Bush responds with.
[ July 05, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Say that? Abortion on demand means that if a woman, for any reason, wants an abortion then she can get one even for reasons like:
1) She's afraid that taking time off from work at the time might hurt her in her career advancement.
2) She alreaday has two kids and doesn't want any more.
3) She finds out the gender of the baby isn't what she wants.
4) She doesn't want a child that has the same racial characteristics as the father.
5) She doesn't want...well, you fill in the blank.
Now you explain what notwanting to create any restrictions on the "right" to have an abortion and abortion on demand are. I truly am interested in knowing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So you don't accept abortion in cases of rape or apparent danger to the life of the mother? (I don't really know what would pose such a danger apart from some advanced cancer scenarios I have heard of). I don't agree with the extension to "health" of the mother, where "health" is interpretable as mental, emotional, financial etc...
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Please name a political figure today that would oppose allowing abortion in the case of forcible rape (not statuatory like a 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old) or if the mother's life is in danger.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Suneun, it depends on how exactly Kerry means 'life begins at conception'. An amoeba can be said to be alive, after all.
However, if he means 'life' the way I define life-worthy of defense, possessing its own natural rights that should not be violated-then his belief system is unconscionable.
Because that would mean, by default, that he is unwilling to stop other people from murdering other helpless people, simply because he doesn't want to violate their belief system. That would be like me witnessing involuntary human sacrifice, possessing the power to prevent or fight against it, but refusing to do so because I don't want to violate the beliefs of the sacrificers.
If, however, he means 'life' in a more biological way, then his statement is fine.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You are the one who says that "on demand" means only for frivolous reasons.
I know in my state legislation is always being discussed of making a woman see an ultrasound image of the fetus before abortion can be performed. I think where a woman has decided to have an abortion, measures like this would only force her to be more emotionally detached.
But I think non-judgemental counseling for women should also be supported. The Pro Choice camp's insistence that abortion should not result in grief is equally stupid. I would guess that abortion would be at least as traumatic as divorce for any given individual.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Rakeesh: I agree that that's the question.
If his definition of "life at conception" is one that morally obligates him to do something, then he's immoral not to do something. I can only point out that I have a definition of "life at conception" that does not morally obligate me to do something. Michaele seems to think that he necessarily must use the first definition.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Personally, it makes me think very highly of Kerry that he is willing to stay pro-Choice in the face of incredible pressure from his church. Who should we have more respect for, the cookie cutter Mormon or Catholic or Jew or whatever who toes the majority line and does not show the ability to compromise[edit: with those who believe differently from themselves], or the person who rolls up their sleeve and speaks their mind and shows that they are willing to try and work with the other side? Who takes risks within their church?
I don't understand the viewpoint that says that if you join a church, you must believe what the church hierarchy says you must believe, period. That you can never agitate for change. Where is the incentive to change within the church if no ideas are ever challenged openly and discussed?
Catholic leaders within the church absolutely have the right to promote certain ideas and creeds as being true within the church. Their power should derive not from their ability to excommunicate and not give communion, but from the power of their logic and the persuasiveness of their arguments. Threatening to withhold communion to force Kerry and others like him to shut up and toe the line seems weak to me. It does not reflect well on the belief that those leaders have in the strength of the logic and persuasiveness of their arguments.
On the other hand, things are as they are in the Catholic church. I hope Kerry is prepared to bear the weight of whatever 'punishments' (withholding of communion, excommunication, etc.) that the church comes up with. If the church does do this, then he should accept the consequences of his actions, and can with all honestly say that he did what he thought was right. This, to me, is admirable, and says far more about his spirit and spirituality, than someone who never goes to church and doesn't get involved with the issues in his church such that he never takes any risks.
[ July 05, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Great point, Rakeesh. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Oh, dear.
*braces for impact*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that neither the pro-life not the pro-choice positions make any sense. I see it as a medical decision.
I'm also tired of this being advanced as a woman's right. I think there are many times men wanting to dodge responsibility behind the decision to abort.
From the Wafer Nazi thread, it is apparent (to me, at least) that the Catholic doctrine assumes personhood at conception.
P.S. I think the question of whether Kerry is taking communion is none of my business.
[ July 05, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Who should we have more respect for, the cookie cutter Mormon or Catholic or Jew or whatever who toes the majority line and does not show the ability to compromise, or the person who rolls up their sleeve and speaks their mind and shows that they are willing to try and work with the other side? Who takes risks within their church?
It depends on whether compromise in a given situation = cowardice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Can't find the whole article, but, basically it says that abstinence alone is ineffective and that most teenagers who sign abstinence pledges have sex within a year. Not only that, but many of them have oral sex not counting it as real sex...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks, CT, my understanding on conditions such as that is that the risks from abortion and delivery are about the same. (edit: this info is about 5 years old, by my understanding is that after 30 weeks a baby can be delivered without huge additional risks to her health). I'm concerned about the idea that keeping the baby after she's born could be seen as a real threat to someone's health.
Maybe I'm biased, but it seems Planned parenthood wants to hide the possibility of adoption just as much as the abstinence folks want to hide condoms.
Syn, how many kids would think to use a condom, if instructed, during oral/anal sex? I think these kids are more worried about pregnancy or, oddly enough, preserving virginity than about disease transmission.
Anyway, the condom education issue is really a different can of worms.
Can Kerry be politically pro-choice but religiously pro-life? I think he could if he were sincere, but I think it's more a case of the compromise forced by party alliances. Since I feel parties are immoral, I feel this is sad.
Likewise, I don't think Bush can really defend the Republican plank calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
[ July 05, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If Kerry is afraid to become pro-life on the basis that he doesn't want to impose his religious views on other people then maybe he should advocate the removal of laws banning murder, after all who is to say that life is valuable?
If abortion is equivalent to murder its murder, if its not its not.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Stating that a fertilized egg is alive does not mean that destroying it is murder. That argument equates a fertilized egg with a person, and therein lies the root of the controversy. If you believe that personhood occurs at some point after conception, then destroying the fetus before that point is not murder.
This has been said several different ways in this thread alone.
[ July 05, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Of the four viewpoints I mention in the original post which best demonstrates your view of when life begins?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
No, a totally legitimate question. When do people believe life (and let's extend some legal protection) really begins? If someone blieves the developing baby (or whatever you want to call it) is a lump of tissue then removing it is no more a moral question than having a wart removed. If however you believe that life is a continual progress (that begins sometime in the womb) then to say you aren't for some legal protections is indefensible.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Maybe this question could shed more light on the issue. Is a newborn baby a human being? Was it human the day before yesterday when it was still in the womb? How about the day before that...how far can we go back to where you would be comfortable in saying that no, it isn't a human being on THIS day?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
michaele8, are you arguing that from the moment of conception, the embryo is, for all intents and purposes, a 'human being'?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hold on a second - Kerry is claiming to follow the Catholic teaching on this, which means he doesn't think a fertilized egg is alive but not a person; he thinks it's a wholly unique living person due all the respect and dignity of other human people. That is, if he really follows the Catholic teaching on this.
Second, it is no more imposing your religious beliefs on others to outlaw abortion that it was for abolitionists to insist that slaves be treated with the same rights and dignity due any other human being.
Dagonee
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I'd err on the side of caution and make abortion illegal except in cases of forced rape and health issues for the mother (i.e. ectoptic pregnancy, etc.).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Suneun,
quote:If his definition of "life at conception" is one that morally obligates him to do something, then he's immoral not to do something. I can only point out that I have a definition of "life at conception" that does not morally obligate me to do something. Michaele seems to think that he necessarily must use the first definition.
But one can be morally obligated to do something, and yet do nothing. Supposing John Kerry thinks that life-human life, that is-begins at conception. That upon conception, the organism is as alive as human children and infants are. What if Kerry still believed that he could not violate another person's beliefs? That is what I am saying is unconscionable. I guess my point is that the excuse (or reason, the mileage varies according to the issue), "But that's their belief and they have a right to it," really extends only as far as MY belief, or YOUR belief, on some things.
There are beliefs practiced in the world this very instant that, I believe, fundamentally violate the individual sovereignty and dignity of persons. It's not MY belief, and the people doing so (maybe even the person being acted upon) may believe their belief is right. But on some things, that doesn't matter to me. Stoning women for adultery, for instance.
My point is, I don't care what your (any person's) belief is if it grossly violates my own beliefs as to what is right. Furthermore, I think everyone has that same thinking-for different beliefs.
--------
Now, as to John Kerry, I don't think highly of him (or Bush), but I don't think he really believes that upon conception, the life-form is human and worthy of protection, and that he's just willing to ignore that in order to court pro-choice voters. I think he believes differently than I do about the nature of life, that's all. Just wanted to throw that little note at the end of this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and this does not really make me think higher or lower of John Kerry than I already do. It doesn't because I have a tendancy to think that national-level politicians (especially the really-really big-leagues) care more about their political ambitions than they do about other conflicts.
Dubya on capital punishment, Kerry on abortion. It's quite obvious that Christians are not supposed to execute people, and it's quite obvious Catholics aren't supposed to practice or endorse abortion. But both of them have presided or moved to make both happen.
Edit: And as usual, Doc hits the nail on the head-most especially with the last sentence
[ July 05, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dagonnee: it is if the problem is defined by religious beliefs. Is a fertilized egg a human being? If you belief that it is not, or not yet, then abortion before the point of personhood is an acceptible procedure. If you believe that a fertilized egg is automatically a human being then any abortion is murder. The belief determines the status.
Something I'm curious about. If you believe that abortion is murder but are willing to permit them in the cases of rape or incest, you're essentially condoning murder for the sake of the mother's emotional hardship. Why? It wasn't the baby's fault.
To me, if you permit abortions for any reason besides the undeniable preservation of the mother's life, you're pro-choice. A very strict pro-choice, but pro-choice nonetheless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, my post was mostly in response to this:
quote:Stating that a fertilized egg is alive does not mean that destroying it is murder. That argument equates a fertilized egg with a person, and therein lies the root of the controversy.
Kerry has effectively stated that he thinks a fertilized egg is alive and that he thinks destroying it is murder (edit: that is, if he truly believes what the Church says.)
As for what michele8 thinks, I've given up hope of discerning that from his posts. Well, we get to know the conclusions, but not the reasoning behind them.
But I'll bow out now, because I'm interested to see if he can muster a coherent line of reasoning on this.
Dagonee
[ July 05, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Something I'm curious about. If you believe that abortion is murder but are willing to permit them in the cases of rape or incest, you're essentially condoning murder for the sake of the mother's emotional hardship. Why? It wasn't the baby's fault.
To me, if you permit abortions for any reason besides the undeniable preservation of the mother's life, you're pro-choice. A very strict pro-choice, but pro-choice nonetheless.
Well, I happen to agree, and I don't like the rape/incest exception. But I'd still vote for a law with the rape/incest exception if it meant getting rid of the other cases. It's a pragmatic decision.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You mean annoying you increases the number of pies in the world? That's not motivation to stay the nice, sweet guy I am, you know.
Michele has participated very little in any substantive threads started by others, and his posts generally start with a broad, over-generalized conclusion lacking supporting reasoning. They're usually quickly followed by shock that his rhetorical masterpieces haven't converted everyone on the forum to his point of view.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I had intended to be polite, but since you're feeling played upon, I'm gonna drop that like a hot rock.
The guy's a troll. His name, type of participation, and types (and especially titles) of threads he starts leads me to think so, anyway.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I had a long post written out, but I'll just say that I"ve changed my mind and say that I guess I agree that you can't say that you agree with the Catholic church's stance on things, and you are pro-choice. It's clear from Kerry's quoted remarks that by 'life', he meant human life.
From kind of googling around a bit, it is also clear to me that you can be Catholic and be pro-choice, as many are.
So, I think Kerry should be pro-choice, but say that he disagrees with the church in this instance. I think he should stop trying to straddle the fence and commit himself to being pro-choice if that's what he wants to be.
As to the whole Michaele8 thing, I actually didn't mind this thread and I thought his posts were non-inflammatory. Not sure why all the hard feelings abound, but I'm sorry that they are.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Rakeesh: I think you and I agree completely. (This is Suneun, on public machines)
CT: Well, give him a little time, but I agree that his posts tend to be polemic trolling. (Heh. I suppose all trolling is polemic)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't get it. Where is he trolling in this thread?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, I think it's a cumulative effect, dating back to a little before you came back. Here, I think the view is that whenever the topic turns to the nitty-gritty portion of his theory (where it might be vulnerable to logical attack), he steps back from the details and takes another tack. And this is from someone who probably agrees with most of his theory.
The problem is, I can't really tell based on what he's posted here.
Anyway, who cares? I'm gettin' a pie!
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Meh. I was agreeing with a trend, not necessarily about this particular thread. I think people are just anxious about waiting for the response.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A cell is alive. If it is human tissue, then it's human life. I don't see any great demand that people be legally persecuted for eg getting a tattoo or an ear pierced. Yet. But let's get a bit real, you folks are just a bunch of Pharissees who wanna brag at the Temple without doing anything that requires a bit of self-sacrifice or self-restraint. If it weren't for the abortion issue, you'd be proclaiming yourselves holy for opposing eg the breaking of eggs on the narrow end.
1) At best, you are arguing that folks who eg believe in dancing around with rattlesnakes ought to be able to use the law to punish everyone who doesn't want to.
2) The complete lack of willingness to accept that others do not share your definitions, and that you are willing to harm living-by-anyone's-standard human beings to enforce your beliefs, is the reason that those who oppose you won't attempt compromise. Appeasement of tyrants never works.
3) Once a baby is born, your attitude is "Your mother is a worthless slut for getting pregnant, so go off and die." Which is one of the many evil reasons that you support Dubya. So don't hand me any BS about being pro-life.
4) A human's body is not a geographical location. The fact that you mistake it for one -- alone -- is enough to prove that you think of humans as merely territory to be conquered.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Everytime I get embarassed because someone is badly expressing a view I share or partly share, someone from the other side comes along to make me realize such things aren't restricted to any one side of the debate.
Dagonee
[ July 05, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aspectres arguments are always so easy, and so victorious Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dagonee - Sometimes you just want to tell people, "Please, don't be on my side. Go over there." It's almost enough to make me think aspectre is a pro-lifer who's come over here to be an agitator.
Let's see...
1) At best, you are arguing that folks who eg believe in dancing around with rattlesnakes ought to be able to use the law to punish everyone who doesn't want to. At best, even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience (as opposed to live human cells being destroyed) and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices. There are an awful lot of people who are pro-life and not at all religious, and several of them post here regularly. Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins, we have only established a legal definition which can be changed. The argument that potential humans deserve protection is not that far-fetched and should not be so easily dismissed.
2) The complete lack of willingness to accept that others do not share your definitions, and that you are willing to harm living-by-anyone's-standard human beings to enforce your beliefs, is the reason that those who oppose you won't attempt compromise. Appeasement of tyrants never works. Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not? Of course, that issue was a bit easier to argue. And yes, some pro-lifers are willing to compromise to achieve a part of what they want. Dagonee just admitted that a page back, or did you miss it?
3) Once a baby is born, your attitude is "Your mother is a worthless slut for getting pregnant, so go off and die." Which is one of the many evil reasons that you support Dubya. So don't hand me any BS about being pro-life. Sigh. Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush. For that matter, many pro-choicers support Bush (although probably for other reasons) and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers. Could you possibly paint with a wider brush?
4) A human's body is not a geographical location. The fact that you mistake it for one -- alone -- is enough to prove that you think of humans as merely territory to be conquered. WTF? You lost me on this one. If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition.
Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue or anything to start...
[ July 05, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Does anyone actually believe that when Kerry says life he isn't referring to human life? Otherwise why in the world would he say that. Obviously something is alive at conception, the question is what.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Can't speak for Kerry, and I'll bet he'll dance like a centipede on ice before he'll commit to an exact definition.
Me, I have no problem believing that a fertilized egg is human life. I just don't agree that it's a person, or that it deserves the same legal protections as the mother. Not yet.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
CT,
on your last point. why the emphasis on use of logic, then, in this thread? or, more pointedly to the subtext of the later portions of this thread, the belittling of the original poster's lack of usage of this logical protocol that leads nowhere? mere civility?
fallow
PS. I like grilling mammals.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:Thanks, CT, my understanding on conditions such as that is that the risks from abortion and delivery are about the same.
Actually, one is 11 times more likely to die from delivery than from having an abortion. Though both are far enough under 1% to be negligable.
For the babies, it's a little more severe. .5% die after being birthed, while 100% die during an abortion.
quote:Sometimes you just want to tell people, "Please, don't be on my side. Go over there."
And sometimes you want to throw aspectre and michaele8 in a giant cage filled with idling chainsaws and let them fight to the death. At least that way, extremists will generate cashflow in the form of $5-a-head seating and gambling profits.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote: fallow, if we take a matter seriously, we should be very careful and thorough in our analysis of it.
absolutely. fairly impossible around here and numero uno reason I rarely participate in "serious threads". there are no agreed upon rules of discourse, let alone compartmentalization of the topic.
quote: Lack of rigor necessarily implies lack of consideration.
Not at all (if you're talking about posting here in the sandbox). The context of an ongoing debate soon to be derailed is a key consideration.
fallow
edit: usual spelling errors associated with difficult word
[ July 05, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
thats a shame.
*pouts*
fallow
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote: Not getting the ORAOTA doesn't mean that we haven't gotten somewhere.
for some. I'm not sure "we" includes the person who got swept under the rug of shame by someone with an overzealous broom-o-logic.
fallow
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I usually ignore Mi...8's threads but this one did happen to include what I would consider an important news story. I guess we could have appended it to wafer Nazi, though.
I wasn't really aware that the "when life begins" argument was the archetype "slippery slide" proof until I took informal logic toward the end of my sophomore year in college, CT. Just to calm your worries about our educational system. I'm sure I'd heard "slippery slide" prior to that with respect to this argument,
I have been searching for a definition somewhere between the embryo/fetus boundary (12 weeks, I think, or when all the discrete organs have begun forming) and fertilization for some time.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:You do it too, you know you do.
was that directed at moi?
fallow
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:I think I'm still angry about the (perceived, by me) typical conservative stance that pro-choice people have made throwaway decisions, that they have shrugged off all sense of personal responsibility and treat something so important as if it were no more than throwing away a wadded up Kleenex.
Something similar that gets my goat is knowing that 48% of all legal abortions are performed on women who've had one or more, previously. I think that's why some people have the impression you dislike. While abortion's not easy, some might think that it would be worth it to try and avoid getting another.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:It's abortion, and it's political partisanship, and it's religion, all explicitly rolled into one. Isn't that just a little like taking the covers off the electrical sockets, unscrewing the plate, dipping your long steel prod into battery acid, and ramming it in through the holes straight up to the ceiling, screaming "Impervious to electricity! I'm impervious to electricity" ?
no. I don't think so. If you aren't familiar with those terms or their real-life messiness...
not sure about that electrical impervitude analogy.
fallow
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Part of the repeat abortions are likely to stem from the fact that people who have risky behavior in the past, continue to have risky behavior in the future. I know that the clinic for which I volunteered tried very hard to give the women contraceptive advice, free OCPs, and as much comfort as possible.
However if one is going to say firmly that the human tissue that is a fetus isn't a person with person-rights, then multiple abortions are as okay as the first. Not the most fiscally intelligent or health-conscious solution, of course.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Actually, one is 11 times more likely to die from delivery than from having an abortion. Though both are far enough under 1% to be negligable.
Frisco, I was speaking strictly of a delivery/abortion at 30 weeks. I don't know how there could be data on this subject since right now women don't electively deliver an unwanted baby... even at 36 weeks and beyond.
An elective deliver at 30 weeks may sound monstrous, but I profer that it is still better than death. Unless one is like those bus drivers in certain foreign countries who are rumored to back up over anyone they have accidentally struck because death is cheaper to settle legally than disability.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
suneum,
what sort of comfort did you provide as a volunteer?
fallow
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I was part of the process beforehand, giving finger-sticks (ooh) to them. I spoke to them a little beforehand, usually just a little bit of conversation. Afterwards, I was in the ginger ale-and-cookies room, where I made sure they were comfortable, had all the cookies they wanted, talked to them if they wanted talking, didn't talk to them if they didn't want talking, etc. There were usually about 2 nurses, and 2 volunteers for about 1-6 patients at any given time.
I was just a small part of the process, of course. They usually spoke to a counselor for half an hour to an hour beforehand.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
CT,
why feeling cranky?
fallow
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If CT were to run for president, I'd be sorely tempted to vote for her, despite her left-leaning politics.
Heavens, she's sensible.
And the only person who could stand against her would be Dagonee, who I'd also be tempted vote for, despite his lawyerliness.
Lawyer vs. left-leaner. . .
Well, are either one of you a member of the Skulls?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Like they would tell you
Partisanship stinks. Though I don't know if CT was meaning me when she blasted the conservatives.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:A process I chose to put myself through was exceedingly long and difficult, and -- having just come out of it -- I am currently feeling quite put-upon.
care to share? the sandbox is generally a good place for such things, as I am to understand.
quote: It is exceptionally irrational to then act out in anger to people who had nothing at all to do with that choice.
quote: I need some sleep, some exercise, some disciplined work, and a whole lotta time just staring at the ceiling.
I'm not sure what rationing out your mind to an orange-peel (just guessing) ceiling is going to accomplish. There are some good sparring partners to be found around here, if you look hard enough.
quote:Bye for now.
did you just drop the ball?
fallow
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think CT could be referring to the residency she just finished. (p.s. to fallow)
(((CT)))
[ July 05, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*drops drooly (sp?) tennis ball*
*does best Scooby impression*
rrrugghhh?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
CT,
No, I haven't had the pleasure. What's it about (declining link, hoping for impressions)?
fallow
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The values of lying in bed, and the despair of finding a good place to draw before he noticed ceilings.
It's a quick read, and a delightful one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, at least ChrisBridges is correct about one thing: I am pro-life. And believe that abortion should be strongly discouraged: through sexual education, unwanted-pregnancy prevention, easing the worries of having responsibility for a child, and moral suasion. There is nothing moral about telling a pregnant woman, "Have a baby, or die from a back-alley abortion. And if you don't die, we'll send you to jail." Or in telling a medical professional, "Save a life and go to prison." Quite the opposite, it is evil. And thus I must also be pro-choice.
4) "If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition."
And michale8 just made such an accusation; I merely threw it back where it originated. Your use of "baby" and "child" instead of 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'baby' shows that you are missing the point entirely. It isn't a matter of where but rather of when human tissue becomes endowed with human rights.
Even on a strictly religious basis, there is disagreement on the when. The Navaho traditionally believe that the soul is joined to the body upon the first smile; ie a human baby is created when someone causes it to smile.
(Which in many ways makes sense: the lack of an ability to smile is usually an indicator of severe brain damage. But not always, there is an even far far more rare condition of a congenital defect in the facial nerves&muscles which prevents an otherwise normal child from smiling)
If a Navaho baby died before it smiled, the event was treated as the equivalent of a miscarriage. If the baby died after it smiled, the body was given a human burial.
Many many traditional cultures treated death before the age of one in the manner of a miscarriage because death was so relatively common in that first year. eg A baby wasn't even named until after the first birthday.
Then we come to the other extreme, PopePiuxIX tossed out a few thousand years of RomanCatholic-Jewish doctrine -- ie human life begins at the quickening; even after the quickening, the fetus was legally treated as property, and human status came after the birth -- cuz he decided after a viewing through a blurry microscope that sperm were homunculi; women were merely the fertile ground within which homunculi grew until birth. Nor can it be said that it was strictly a scientific (even for the times) and spiritual decision. The French birthrate was declining due to use of various birth control methods, and NapoleonIII wanted more French babies to grow up and become more French soldiers. PiuxIX had strong political need of NapoleonIII's military muscle inre the reestablishment of Papal secular power in the Italian peninsula. Then there was his need for NapoleonIII to pressure the French cardinals into voting in favor of Papal Infallibility. Etc.
3) "Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush."
I don't mistake anti-abortionists for pro-lifers; and won't concede them their deceptive self-labeling. No pro-lifer could vote for Bush. Are there a those who oppose abortion who are also pro-life? Obviously, but we are a small minority, and folks like michaele8 are not in that minority.
3) "...many pro-choicers support Bush...and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers."
Rephrase that as "some". As ClaudiaTherese pointed out, there is a problem of semantics: 'many' implies a majority or near; 'some' implies a minority, usually small. Did I say that folks couldn't find other reasons for voting for Dubya? Dubya's appeal is his ability to convince others that their particular DeadlySins are Virtues.
2) "Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not?"
Gotta agree. Some man comes along, plants a claim/homunculi/seed into a woman's fertile field, and the anti-abortionists insist that the government enforce his homesteading. That all of a sudden, a woman's body isn't her own, but rather the property of others. In other words, a step toward the return of slavery, which is the real neo"conservative" goal.
1) "even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience...and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices."
How? They believe thru faith-only that they have the right to define when human tissue becomes a human being. And want to use the government to force their particular belief upon all others.
1) "Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins"
True, and that no one includes anti-abortionists. So why should their beliefs be the standard.
"Can you paint with a wider brush?"
Why? The small number of true pro-lifers like Tom_Davidson are teflon-coated against any of my charges sticking. The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
"Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue..."
You're welcome. I always believe that ya hafta start by talking with folk in their own language; ie before a meaningful dialogue can occur.
[ July 05, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
aspectre,
any hope of summarizing that last post into the salient points?
fallow
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Does anyone here actually claim to know as fact when a person becomes a person at a certain point in time without using religion one way or another? Considering that are you really willing to take the risk that maybe you are ending the life of a real person every time you perform an abortion? The whole back alley argument is really irrelevant because all laws are broken but they shouldn't be removed simply because they are broken or the fact that they are broken leads to something worse than whats being banned.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
What's your definition of "pro-life", aspectre?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Newfoundling,
I don't think anyone made that claim. But, I don't think "personhood" is really the issue, either.
fallow
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:The whole back alley argument is really irrelevant because all laws are broken but they shouldn't be removed simply because they are broken or the fact that they are broken leads to something worse than whats being banned.
I must admit I am curious as to the reasoning behind the bolded part. (I do not necessarily believe that back-alley abortions would be worse than legal ones.)
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote: I must admit I am curious as to the reasoning behind the bolded part.
hmmm... reasoning?
rhymes with?
fallow
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Danzig, I never said they were worse, that's just what has been the assumption made by the pro-choicers.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Fallow, the fact than no one made that claim is the point. Because no one knows is why the risk of taking the life a real person should not be taken.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Newfoundlogic-
I believe a person is created upon fertilization and my beliefs are not based on religion. I think that all stages of pregnancy are human development the same way that a 2 year old is different from an 18 year old.
But I think it would be hard to prove my theory to someone in favor of pro-choice. Michael8 said earlier,
quote: Is a newborn baby a human being? Was it human the day before yesterday when it was still in the womb? How about the day before that...how far can we go back to where you would be comfortable in saying that no, it isn't a human being on THIS day?
despite others calling Michael8 a troll, I think this made alot of sense. Personally I cannot and I do not understand how others make this sort of cut and dry black and white decision. So I think that anything fertilized deserves the same rights as a living breathing human. Simply because that line is so hard to define.
NFL- I dont think what I said really answered what you were asking, the only thing that remotely may have answered what you said is that my beliefs are not based upon religion.
[ July 06, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
NFL,
nobody knows what? you lost me.
fallow
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
Then there is no one better suited to the task:) And hey, you can speak to `em in their own language because it's your native language, too. You just have a slightly different dialect.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Yes, aspectre, I am a terrible disgusting person who favors the return of slavery and is not really pro-life because I don't want babies being chopped into sushi.
Look--would you speed through a crosswalk without looking because there usually isn't anyone there? Would you fire a gun at something you think is a deer, without checking closely to be sure? Even if you have some reason to think that an embryo might not be a human being, why do you insist that people be allowed to take that kind of risk with someone else's life?
I don't assume that you're evil because you hold the political position you do. Why do you assume I am?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And the only person who could stand against her would be Dagonee, who I'd also be tempted vote for, despite his lawyerliness.
As if I'd run against CT. Thanks for the compliment, though.
quote:Well, at least ChrisBridges is correct about one thing: I am pro-life. And believe that abortion should be strongly discouraged: through sexual education, unwanted-pregnancy prevention, easing the worries of having responsibility for a child, and moral suasion. There is nothing moral about telling a pregnant woman, "Have a baby, or die from a back-alley abortion. And if you don't die, we'll send you to jail." Or in telling a medical professional, "Save a life and go to prison." Quite the opposite, it is evil. And thus I must also be pro-choice.
4) "If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition."
And michale8 just made such an accusation; I merely threw it back where it originated. Your use of "baby" and "child" instead of 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'baby' shows that you are missing the point entirely. It isn't a matter of where but rather of when human tissue becomes endowed with human rights.
Even on a strictly religious basis, there is disagreement on the when. The Navaho traditionally believe that the soul is joined to the body upon the first smile; ie a human baby is created when someone causes it to smile.
(Which in many ways makes sense: the lack of an ability to smile is usually an indicator of severe brain damage. But not always, there is an even far far more rare condition of a congenital defect in the facial nerves&muscles which prevents an otherwise normal child from smiling)
If a Navaho baby died before it smiled, the event was treated as the equivalent of a miscarriage. If the baby died after it smiled, the body was given a human burial.
Many many traditional cultures treated death before the age of one in the manner of a miscarriage because death was so relatively common in that first year. eg A baby wasn't even named until after the first birthday.
Then we come to the other extreme, PopePiuxIX tossed out a few thousand years of RomanCatholic-Jewish doctrine -- ie human life begins at the quickening; even after the quickening, the fetus was legally treated as property, and human status came after the birth -- cuz he decided after a viewing through a blurry microscope that sperm were homunculi; women were merely the fertile ground within which homunculi grew until birth. Nor can it be said that it was strictly a scientific (even for the times) and spiritual decision. The French birthrate was declining due to use of various birth control methods, and NapoleonIII wanted more French babies to grow up and become more French soldiers. PiuxIX had strong political need of NapoleonIII's military muscle inre the reestablishment of Papal secular power in the Italian peninsula. Then there was his need for NapoleonIII to pressure the French cardinals into voting in favor of Papal Infallibility. Etc.
3) "Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush."
I don't mistake anti-abortionists for pro-lifers; and won't concede them their deceptive self-labeling. No pro-lifer could vote for Bush. Are there a those who oppose abortion who are also pro-life? Obviously, but we are a small minority, and folks like michaele8 are not in that minority.
3) "...many pro-choicers support Bush...and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers."
Rephrase that as "some". As ClaudiaTherese pointed out, there is a problem of semantics: 'many' implies a majority or near; 'some' implies a minority, usually small. Did I say that folks couldn't find other reasons for voting for Dubya? Dubya's appeal is his ability to convince others that their particular DeadlySins are Virtues.
2) "Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not?"
Gotta agree. Some man comes along, plants a claim/homunculi/seed into a woman's fertile field, and the anti-abortionists insist that the government enforce his homesteading. That all of a sudden, a woman's body isn't her own, but rather the property of others. In other words, a step toward the return of slavery, which is the real neo"conservative" goal.
1) "even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience...and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices."
How? They believe thru faith-only that they have the right to define when human tissue becomes a human being. And want to use the government to force their particular belief upon all others.
1) "Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins"
True, and that no one includes anti-abortionists. So why should their beliefs be the standard.
"Can you paint with a wider brush?"
Why? The small number of true pro-lifers like Tom_Davidson are teflon-coated against any of my charges sticking. The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
"Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue..."
You're welcome. I always believe that ya hafta start by talking with folk in their own language; ie before a meaningful dialogue can occur.
emphasis added
You are without a doubt the single most loathesome person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter online, aspectre. You pretend to have God-like knowledge of the motives of others and of their beliefs, and you sling sh&^ around like a monkey hoping people won't notice he's not big and scary like the gorilla next door. It's easy for you to hate, because you don't hate real people, just cartoon villians you've superimposed over real people.
If you ever deigned to discuss ideas with others, rather than to insult those who have different ideas than you, you might learn something about what makes others tick. As it is, you just underscore your idiocy and lack of empathy.
Dagonee
[ July 06, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wow, I was reading this and thinking to myself, "I simply have to find some way to get CT to marry me," and then she goes and says she's bowing out because she's a crabby hate-machine. Which is a good thing for me because if I ever witnessed her in full-blown awesomeness I'd be sunk... unless I have a thing for hate machines (could be, could be).
It's a shame that she's already in Slash's hootchie stable.
Oh, and that whole husband thing. He leaves issues of Harpers open to specific articles in the bathroom for her. You just can't compete with that.
Oh, and um. Abortions for everyone! No abortions for anyone! Abortions for some, little flags for everyone else!
[ July 06, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey BtL, the 'in case he dies' line long since formed. Take your place! Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I know, I know. Curse my youth!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're supposed to say, 'Curse my youth and stunning good looks!'
Kids these days. Don't know how to say anything right.
[ July 06, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ah, but you're wrong. I had originally thought that but then I realized that people your age have been saying it for years and are no farther ahead in line than you were before you started. The secret is a slow build and an air of mystery. I need her to come to the (obvious) conclusions about my many good qualities without pointing them out myself.
It's a careful game I play, old man. Now shoo, you're cramping my style.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why are you acting as though my cramping of your style were an accident?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Thanks for the compliment, though.![[Wink]](wink.gif)