It's like we've gotten a liberal version of Bean Counter.
UF, please do all of your political causes a big favor and stop arguing in favor of them. Thanks.
--Enigmatic
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Umm - I want people to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I just want the brain hurting to stop.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Umm - I want people to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Right! Because everyone knows that newborns are fully capable of being fully responsible for themselves from the first breath. Tell those babies to get a job! They're just pretending they can't even hold their own heads up -- they're just lazy and we have to stop coddling them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If there were a way to take care of babies without paying for their parents who had a kid without being to take care of it, I'm sure lots more people would be on board.
I imagine very few are not in favor of giving up some of their own income in order to make sure babies are safe and warm and fed. More resent giving up some of their own security and warmth in order to house and feed and take care of their perceived-as-irresponsible adults who are the babies' parents.
Note: This is an observation and not a representation of what I think should happen.
[ October 23, 2008, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If there were a way to take care of babies without paying for their parents who had a kid without being to take care of it, I'm sure lots more people would be on board.
There is. It's called teaching the parents about birth control, the morning after pill, and condoms.
But strangely a lot of pro-life people also seem to be anti-sex-education.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote: Umm - I want people to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Right! Because everyone knows that newborns are fully capable of being fully responsible for themselves from the first breath. Tell those babies to get a job! They're just pretending they can't even hold their own heads up -- they're just lazy and we have to stop coddling them.
You know that "people" did not refer to newborns, Rabbit.
quote:I am confused.
Clearly. Too bad you've decided to wield your confusion as a weapon rather than seek to end it.
quote:I imagine very few are in favor of giving up some of their own income in order to make sure babies are safe and warm and fed.
Actually, very many are in favor of giving up some of their own income in order to make sure babies are safe and warm and fed, as evidenced by the fact that very many actually do give up some of their income to do so.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I imagine very few are in favor of giving up some of their own income in order to make sure babies are safe and warm and fed. More resent giving up some of their own security and warmth in order to house and feed and take care of their perceived-as-irresponsible adults who are the babies' parents.
Not very Christian is it?
The Bible says an awful lot more about our moral obligation to care for children, the poor, the sick and the elderly than it does about protecting the rights of the unborn.
quote:If there were a way to take care of babies without paying for their parents who had a kid without being to take care of it, I'm sure lots more people would be on board.
Poverty is the number one reason women seek abortions. Ironic isn't it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, it looks like there's enough unChristian feelings to go around. I'd leave the sifting of people's righteousness up to the one is able to know everyone's heart. Self-righteous judgment is a poor political tool.
--
Dag: Whoops - I left out a "not".
----
Javert: And lots of pro-life people ARE in favor of sex education and birth control. You are not doing yourself any favors with the careless stereotypes and issue-mixing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Poverty is the number one reason women seek abortions. Ironic isn't it.
Can you cite this? It doesn't match with my recollection of the research.
First example I found (it's 20 years old), which states that in the United States, "cannot afford a baby" is the second-most common "main reason" for having an abortion, and the second most-cited reason where multiple reasons are given. Note that "cannot afford a child" is not co-extensive with "poverty."
quote:Dag: Whoops - I left out a "not".
Thanks for clarifying. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB]
quote:
quote: Umm - I want people to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Right! Because everyone knows that newborns are fully capable of being fully responsible for themselves from the first breath. Tell those babies to get a job! They're just pretending they can't even hold their own heads up -- they're just lazy and we have to stop coddling them.
You know that "people" did not refer to newborns, Rabbit.
Yup, I recognize that lobo was most likely referring to adults and likely parents and not children. My sarcastic comment was just intended to emphasize how ridiculous it is to talk about personal responsibility when you are dealing with people who are not capable of it.
We all need to feel a personal responsibility for the welfare of the children in our community and part of that personal responsibility includes a responsibility to support community programs, including government programs, that will promote child welfare. The government is the only organization in our society that has resources and authority needed to ensure that all children are well cared for and not just those with able parents, families and churchs.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Javert: And lots of pro-life people ARE in favor of sex education and birth control. You are not doing yourself any favors with the careless stereotypes and issue-mixing.
I'm not stereotyping. I would be stereotyping if I said "all pro-life people believe such-and-such". I didn't.
And how is it issue-mixing? Comprehensive sex-education leads to less unwanted pregnancies, which leads to less abortions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Plus socialism plus welfare. That's too many issues mixed together to have a productive discussion, so dragging in the beliefs of some on an entirely different issue just to cast aspersions on a particular point of view is muddying things up.
Especially as one who is against abortion but gung ho for sex edcuation, it seems less than helpful. ---
Rabbit, at least some of the people they were talking about ARE capable of responsibility for themselves. Your comment ignored that in a disrespectful way.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Plus socialism plus welfare. That's too many issues mixed together to have a productive discussion, so dragging in the beliefs of some on an entirely different issue just to cast aspersions on a particular point of view is muddying things up.
Especially as one who is against abortion but gung ho for sex edcuation, it seems less than helpful. ---
My point was that if you educate these people, they don't have kids that you, in turn, don't have to give money for.
Just because it isn't helpful to you personally doesn't mean it's not helpful to the issue or the discussion.
Posted by phianna (Member # 11767) on :
quote:Poverty is the number one reason women seek abortions. Ironic isn't it.
Actually, I live in a city where the going trend among the poverty stricken is to have more children and therefore receive more goverment assistance. I deal with children whose parents have told them the only reason they and their siblings were born was so "Mama, can get more money." In fact, the only people around here getting abortions are those who simply don't want to deal with a child messing up their life plan.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Javert,
If that was your point, it would have been better to say it that way rather than trying to discredit all pro-lifers by saying they were probably hypocrites.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I... Think I'm going to stay out of this one.
I may start a pool on how many pages it gets to before it gets locked, though. Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Welcome to hatrack, phianna, where almost nothing is 'simply' anything.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yup, I recognize that lobo was most likely referring to adults and likely parents and not children. My sarcastic comment was just intended to emphasize how ridiculous it is to talk about personal responsibility when you are dealing with people who are not capable of it.
We all need to feel a personal responsibility for the welfare of the children in our community and part of that personal responsibility includes a responsibility to support community programs, including government programs, that will promote child welfare. The government is the only organization in our society that has resources and authority needed to ensure that all children are well cared for and not just those with able parents, families and churchs.
How many people get abortions each year? Are you saying that ALL of them are "people who are not capable of [personal responsibility]? And that the government should have the "authority .. to ensure that all children are well cared for"?
Who decides what "well cared for" means?
It seems you hold with the thought that the Government is wiser than the individual...
This sounds alot more like European Socialism than American Democracy...
Let me guess, you support Obama?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Javert,
If that was your point, it would have been better to say it that way rather than trying to discredit all pro-lifers by saying they were probably hypocrites.
And it would be better for you not to present what I said inaccurately when anyone can go up and read what I actually wrote.
Saying "a lot of pro-life people" is not saying all pro-life people, nor was it an attempt to.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I have no problem with people being wanting others to carry their pregnancies to term. It's the same with people wanting others to have only heterosexual marriages, not have sex before marriage, go to therapy instead of getting divorces, only marry within their own faith, etc.
It's fitting with their world view and religious beliefs, and that's cool.
I DO have a problem with governments mandating any of the above things, and that's where things get sticky.
You can try to convince others to do those things, and you may disapprove if they don't. You can write opinion articles and take out advertising. You can shout from the rooftops or create webpages or blogs around it. That's great - freedom of expression. I can dig it.
Just don't try to force legislature down the throats of those who have differing beliefs. As my father always said, "Your right to swing your arm ends at my face."
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Umm - I want people to take personal responsibility for their actions...
"Finish college," "Hang onto my job," "Care for my dying parent," and "Be able to take adequate care of the children I already have" all sound like taking personal responsibility to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: ... This sounds alot more like European Socialism than American Democracy...
Well, technically both places have democracy. The real difference is the difference in socialism. Let's walk through it:
European socialism: Redistribute money to both the poor and the rich via banks. Canadian socialism: Redistribute money to the poor only. Chinese socialism: Say you're Communist, but redistribute money to no one. American socialism: Redistribute money to the rich only.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: American socialism: Redistribute money to the rich only.
*wipes tear* Sorry, that just sounded so funny after my conversation with my husband today, where we had tallied up how much money we had received from the government that we never earned. A ballpark estimate, taking into consideration EIC, food stamps, free medical care (including pre-natal care, two deliveries, and two major surgeries), and the money we receive in excess of what we spend on college is somewhere around $50,000. In seven years.
I know it's anecdotal, but sometimes a little reality can help one refocus.
ETA: By the time he's done with school, it'll probably be over $100,000. It's astronomical to me, and frankly embarrassing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It sounds like a lot, but realize thats over 7 years or only roughly over $7k a year.
In Ontario, Canada you'd receive $20k per year as a couple with two children on welfare alone. Thats already $140k over seven years. Add on better free health care, free dental care, and generous government bursaries for university tuition, and you're looking at a much more substantial sum.
Still dinky stuff compared to a 700 billion bailout + billion dollar bailouts for each of Freddie Mac, Freddie Mae, and AIG though Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by lobo: ... This sounds alot more like European Socialism than American Democracy...
Well, technically both places have democracy. The real difference is the difference in socialism. Let's walk through it:
European socialism: Redistribute money to both the poor and the rich via banks. Canadian socialism: Redistribute money to the poor only. Chinese socialism: Say you're Communist, but redistribute money to no one. American socialism: Redistribute money to the rich only.
Inaccurate, 300 billions$ each year is redistributed to the poor provinces from the richer coastal provinces. Whether poor people actually get money probly not, but to some extant teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime comes to mind. There are times that the worth of handouts becomes much much more when its aimed at infrastructure rather then people themselves.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Is personal responsibility even an issue worth debating in relation to abortion? It doesn't address the primary reasons for supporting either side.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
How do you redistribute money to the rich? Wasn't it their money to begin with??
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
By personal responsibility, I mean taking responsibility for the act of making the baby. Don't just kill it to get out of dealing with it...
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I wasn't actually addressing you in particular. I was commenting on this thread as a whole.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It sounds like a lot, but realize thats over 7 years or only roughly over $7k a year.
And yet that is $7000 directly out of the pocket of a fellow citizen. Sometimes I think like that to help me remember not to take it for granted; I imagine stealing a large sum of money out of the pocket of a more financially well-off friend or relative. It's hard. Plus, if I had ever received welfare, that amount would be doubled. The only thing that lets me sleep at night is knowing that we will be paying back more than our fair share when Jes is done with school. Hopefully.
I tried to open your link, but my old laptop doesn't do so well with pdf's. Sorry. I'll try it on my desktop when I get home.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Given that the terms in the first post mean what I think they do, I actually *can* explain. I hope that's what's desired here!
When you mix someone else's beliefs, which you don't hold ("abortion is wrong") with your own beliefs, which they don't hold ("socialism is an effective means, and the only effective means, of preventing child deprivation"), you are bound to get something neither you nor they will agree with ("child deprivation is A-OK").
I assume that the socialism belief is Unicorn's belief, because without it the post doesn't hold together. If not, Unicorn can state explicitly his assumptions -- and ask if they are shared by those he disagrees with about abortion.
It's insidious, because we all use assumptions, and you may not be aware which of yours aren't shared by others.
But think about how this sort of argument usually works when others you *don't* agree with start buliding a model of *you*. You get people proving that you believe all sorts of wild things you never even considered, and showing how "contradictory" your beliefs are -- but it's really how contradictory your beliefs are when mixed in with their own. (Or maybe you've never had that experience.)
If we start with the assumption that those we disagree with are not evil, stupid, or insane; we listen openly to their beliefs; and then ask, In what kind of world would their beliefs be true? we may get some inkling of how they perceive the world. If not, it's just a story we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel right. Which is sort of pointless.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ooo...I like you. Who are you?
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
quote: I have no problem with people being wanting others to carry their pregnancies to term. It's the same with people wanting others to have only heterosexual marriages, not have sex before marriage, go to therapy instead of getting divorces, only marry within their own faith, etc.
It's fitting with their world view and religious beliefs, and that's cool.
I DO have a problem with governments mandating any of the above things, and that's where things get sticky.
You can try to convince others to do those things, and you may disapprove if they don't. You can write opinion articles and take out advertising. You can shout from the rooftops or create webpages or blogs around it. That's great - freedom of expression. I can dig it.
Just don't try to force legislature down the throats of those who have differing beliefs. As my father always said, "Your right to swing your arm ends at my face."
I believe I am now a fan of FlyingCow.
This was one of the few posts, concerning topics of a controversial nature, that I can truly say I support completely.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Re: "Issue Mixing"
Not only are the issues related, but the entire point of the thread was to point out how they were, so discussing the various issues together seems perfectly valid.
I do think Qaz's point is pretty relevant, as well as the people pointing out that not all Pro-Life people fit the entire "official" conservative stereotype. However, I have seen lots of Pro-Life people telling me that adoption is always the better choice, yet I have never seen a Pro-Life family actually adopt (not to say they don't ever, just that I haven't come across it yet). Likewise, opposition to birth control is a fairly common belief as well.
Unicorn was obviously referring specifically to socialism (given that it's in the title of the thread and all) but substitute adoption and you get a similar hypocrisy among a large number of Pro-Lifers (please note that I am saying "Large Number", not "All" or even "Most.") Likewise, many also seem to oppose sex education and birth control.
About 500,000 children get shuffled around in the US foster care system. To those who are opposed to abortion, birth control, sex education, and who STILL aren't willing to adopt children.... what exactly are we supposed to do?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: I have never seen a Pro-Life family actually adopt (not to say they don't ever, just that I haven't come across it yet)
I'm willing to bet quite a few families who adopt are pro-life, at the very least inasmuch as their individual cases are concerned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unicorn was obviously referring specifically to socialism (given that it's in the title of the thread and all) but substitute adoption and you get a similar hypocrisy among a large number of Pro-Lifers (please note that I am saying "Large Number", not "All" or even "Most.")
"Hypocrisy" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
There are a vanishingly small number of infants who cannot be placed for adoption at birth - which is the type of adoption that is at issue when one is discussing the decision to abort a child or place a child for adoption.
quote:About 500,000 children get shuffled around in the US foster care system.To those who are opposed to abortion, birth control, sex education, and who STILL aren't willing to adopt children.... what exactly are we supposed to do?
We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Unicorn was obviously referring specifically to socialism (given that it's in the title of the thread and all) but substitute adoption and you get a similar hypocrisy among a large number of Pro-Lifers (please note that I am saying "Large Number", not "All" or even "Most.") Likewise, many also seem to oppose sex education and birth control.
I'm not sure it's entirely hypocrisy. Perhaps pro-lifers are trying to advocate *not having sex* before one is ready to accept the probable consequences of having sex. Naive, sure, but perhaps it would be hypocrisy to *them* if they decided to endorse birth control.
Me personally, I think that sex ed and wide acceptance and use of birth control is probably the only way to put an end to abortions. Rape victims can get the morning-after pill, which may (or may not, I'm just sayin' stuff) actually encourage them to come forward sooner.
People should actually be informed about sex, and parents seem to be disturbingly lax in doing their jobs to their growing children as far as this is concerned. I'm not sure if I'm for sex ed in schools just yet, but basically I think every adult capable of having sex should be able to know these things:
1. Sex makes babies if you're not careful. Yes, even your first time. 2. Several diseases are communicable by sex if you're not careful. 3. The only way to guarantee you won't make babies or get diseases from sex is to not have sex (call me a prude but the statistics back me up on this one). Here are some options available to you to up your odds if you decide to engage in sex anyway. 4. Anyone who has suffered abuse or rape has a right to get help and pursue criminal prosecution against their abuser.
As for abortion, I don't think there's really anyone who loves it. I think it's abominable, destructive, and wrong. But, ultimately, I think the government has no place regulating who can and cannot have one, because the line is so very blurry -- only the most out-there pro-lifers will deny the right to pursue an abortion when a mother's life is at great risk and/or the baby is unlikely to live (Then again, I've known several women [anecdotal I know, sorry] who continued their pregnancy after such warnings from their doctors and went on to raise beautiful, healthy children. Maybe this says something about how much we should trust our doctors. /tangent).
There are huge numbers of childless families who are waiting in line to adopt, and the financial and emotional costs can be very high. Just because some advocates cannot pay this price themselves does not make them hypocrites.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
This *feels* like an argument that could also justify saying that everyone should have as many children as possible based on the implied premises that:
a) Their likely preference, once they are capable of expressing it, would almost always be that they exist in the resulting resource-constrained, overpopulated world rather than not exist at all.
and
b) That their hypothetical preference is a (the?) primary determinator of the correctness of the action.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
This *feels* like an argument that could also justify saying that everyone should have as many children as possible based on the implied premises that:
a) Their likely preference, once they are capable of expressing it, would almost always be that they exist in the resulting resource-constrained, overpopulated world rather than not exist at all.
and
b) That their hypothetical preference is a (the?) primary determinator of the correctness of the action.
I thought that theoretically, the issue here is not that the babies did not exist, it is that they did exist at one time but were murdered.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I thought that theoretically, the issue here is not that the babies did not exist, it is that they did exist at one time but were murdered.
I don't object to *that* argument beyond disagreeing with it, but if you are going to argue about whether people should be permitted to have abortions based on the desire for life that non-aborted people eventually express, then it seems to follow that one could make the same argument about not conceiving as many of these eventually-valuing-their-lives people as possible.
If you acknowledge that this desire is not an overriding factor and that other considerations should come into play when deciding whether or not to conceive, then it follows that this applies to abortions as well because both actions (abortion, preventing conception) will result in preventing a person from existing who would have eventually wanted to be exist.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: murdered.
I think this emotive term has to be misused in this case. Doesn't this term imply an illegal action, which an abortion is not (currently)?
And also, up until now this thread was staying so polite - think we can keep it that way?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:"Hypocrisy" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
There are a vanishingly small number of infants who cannot be placed for adoption at birth - which is the type of adoption that is at issue when one is discussing the decision to abort a child or place a child for adoption.
We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
I am aware that there is a waiting list for adopting infants (white infants anyway. I know that the length of the list is different for different races although I'm not sure by what degree. Anyone have any stats on that?) And I can see the point of view that "I'm specifically talking about adopting infants so it's not hypocritical of me to ignore the hundreds of thousands of post-infants who haven't been adopted." But it seems absurd to me to treat the two issues as unrelated. The world has finite resources and we can't even properly take care of the children that exist.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: murdered.
I think this emotive term has to be misused in this case. Doesn't this term imply an illegal action, which an abortion is not (currently)?
And also, up until now this thread was staying so polite - think we can keep it that way?
I do have to say that this argument doesn't really help (and neither does the "You may not like abortion but you don't have a right to legislate it" one). If it was perfectly legal to kill an adult human would you sit around saying "Well, it's not illegal and even though I might think it's pretty bad I don't have a right to go around forcing my views on other people?"
When you believe mass murder is taking place, I think you're perfectly justified in doing what you can to stop it.
The core problem is as much as some people clearly see this as murder, others don't. I see no difference between an unfertilized egg and a first trimester fetus. I don't think there's a clear cut line we can draw, although I'm willing to draw it for legal reasons at the development of the brain. (Heartbeats and fingerprints don't impress me).
So I don't have a problem with pro-life people being pro-life. It just bugs me when they ignore the greater ramifications of the issue and tell other people they should be doing things that they themselves are not willing to do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And also, up until now this thread was staying so polite - think we can keep it that way?
The thread where pro-lifers were accused of being hypocrites? Have we been reading the same thread? It has not remotely been polite.
If you meant to say that pro-lifers have not been returning in kind the actions and words hurled at them, then I completely agree.
However, using the phrase "murder" is not necessarily unkind. Taking that word off the table is the equivalent of silencing those who believe that ending the life of a person-not-yet-born is, in fact, murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The world has finite resources and we can't even properly take care of the children that exist.
And yet, I'm positive that you don't advocate killing (or allowing the parents to choose to kill) those children who do exist. Does that make you a hypocrite for not adopting one of them?
No. It doesn't.
We have different premises about whether abortion is killing a child. Before you call something hypocrisy, you need to account for all the ways the views in question differ from yours. My question was a pithy attempt to make it clear that you had failed to do that.
Hopefully this answer's MattP's post, too (as a matter of clarification, not refutation).
There's another way in which that question is relevant to the general abortion discussion. I've talked with many people who think abortion is kinder than allowing an unwanted child to be born - that is, people assert that their view on abortion is compassionate towards a large number of those aborted. That hasn't been brought up here, but my response is often the same question.
quote:And I can see the point of view that "I'm specifically talking about adopting infants so it's not hypocritical of me to ignore the hundreds of thousands of post-infants who haven't been adopted." But it seems absurd to me to treat the two issues as unrelated.
Even though they are related, there is a huge difference between them in the abortion argument. Convincing a mother to carry to term and place the child for adoption saves the child's life (from the perspective of the hypothetical pro-life adopter). Adopting a foster child has a good chance to improve the child's life and might actually save it (although we likely won't ever know that).
There are significant ways in which both you and I could dramatically improve the life of one or more individual, including creating a chance of saving a life. I'm assuming that you favor some law that will, at some time, save the life of a child. Does that mean your a hypocrite for not taking whatever step you could take in order to improve the life of an individual?
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If it was perfectly legal to kill an adult human would you sit around saying "Well, it's not illegal and even though I might think it's pretty bad I don't have a right to go around forcing my views on other people?"
But that is perfectly legal, in certain circumstances. War, the death penalty, and self-defense, to name three.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Thank you, Katharina. In my ordinary life I am a mild-mannered reporter, but at night I become -- a random sequence of letters!
More to the point, I sometimes teach a class in which there's a component of critical thinking (it's not my usual topic), and on my own I'm exploring something called Nonviolent Communication, which is the art of talking to people on touchy topics without (you hope) pissing them off. We'll see how well it works.
[ October 23, 2008, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: murdered.
I think this emotive term has to be misused in this case. Doesn't this term imply an illegal action, which an abortion is not (currently)?
And also, up until now this thread was staying so polite - think we can keep it that way?
In my experience, there is no such thing as a polite abortion debate. Too many people are too hot about their point of view and unable to see, even in a logical way, the other point of view.
Although in this case I was trying to be polite. In fact, I was offering the most logical argument for the pr-life side of this debate because even though I am pro-choice, I understand that it is a legitimate point of view.
And actually, it's more than that. It's the central issue in abortion debates, though one that is often stepped around. When does life begin? If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder in a moral sense. Murder is not just a legal term.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Thank you, Katharina. In my ordinary life I am a mild-mannered reporter, but at night I become -- a random sequence of letters!
More to the point, I sometimes teach a class in which there's a component of critical thinking (it's not my usual topic), and on my own I'm exploring something called Nonviolent Communication, which is the art of talking to people on touchy topics without (you hope) pissing them off. We'll see how well it works.
Oh! I want to learn to do that! I actually try, though I am often unsuccessful. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And yet, I'm positive that you don't advocate killing (or allowing the parents to choose to kill) those children who do exist.
quote:We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
And many would answer that they would prefer not to exist. This is so common that it is a cliche: "I wish to the lord I'd never been born." The teen suicide rate would also speak to that issue.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But that is perfectly legal, in certain circumstances. War, the death penalty, and self-defense, to name three.
All of which are highly controversial, and result in people trying to force their opinion on others.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually openly consider myself a hypocrite in a lot of areas. I think people in general are often hypocritical just by virtue of most things worth doing are easier to tell other people to do that to actually do yourself. Since I consider pretty much everyone hypocritical, I don't see it as terribly insulting. I didn't mean to be that offensive to anyone here.
I do see your point, Dag, but outlawing abortion without also taking measures to deal with the consequences is just poorly thought out. And in this case, the consequences are pretty major and can ONLY be dealt with by large numbers of people willingly adopting children.
Not to mention that if your worldview also leads you believe stem cell research is murder, then there are already more "human lives" in America that any number of adopting families could ever take care of.
quote:And many would answer that they would prefer not to exist. This is so common that it is a cliche: "I wish to the lord I'd never been born." The teen suicide rate would also speak to that issue.
I don't know that this is that great a point either, because I'm sure there's just as many who'd rather be alive.
I think Matt's reasoning was a little more all encompassing. And no, I don't think Dagonee's answer to it was particularly satisfying. Matt wasn't criticizing the idea that abortion is wrong, he was criticizing a bad argument trying to explain why it's wrong, when the fact is it really all comes down to what your gut feelings are.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:We could start by asking them "Would you prefer to not exist or to have gone through the foster care system?"
This *feels* like an argument that could also justify saying that everyone should have as many children as possible based on the implied premises that:
a) Their likely preference, once they are capable of expressing it, would almost always be that they exist in the resulting resource-constrained, overpopulated world rather than not exist at all.
and
b) That their hypothetical preference is a (the?) primary determinator of the correctness of the action.
If I may expand on this post, I'd like to add that one of the reasons that this argument doesn't really gel with me is the difficulty in computing the hypothetical.
It was brought up earlier that one of the main reasons for abortion was not being able to afford a child. In other words, some of the people are using abortion as family planning to put off having children until their personal finances improve.
Thus if you ask the hypothetical children that would have been aborted ... using a potentially aborted child as a proxy. You somehow have to weigh that against the probabilities that after being compelled to avoid an abortion the mother either has the child and gives it up for adoption OR has the child anyways while not being able to afford it, but not wanting to give it up anyways.
Then you also have to weigh the opinion of the hypothetical aborted child with the foster child as proxy against the hypothetical child that the mother would have had if she went through with her family planning and had children when she was able to afford it. At this point my mind starts to hurt. (And if you start throwing global hypotheticals as consequences of the family planning, oy)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do see your point, Dag, but outlawing abortion without also taking measures to deal with the consequences is just poorly thought out.
Sure. You've yet to demonstrate that this is what large numbers of pro-lifers want to do. You've simply thrown it out there as an accusation.
And in this case, the consequences are pretty major and can ONLY be dealt with by large numbers of people willingly adopting children. [/quote]
And I've yet to see any evidence that the numbers aren't there for people adopting infants that would otherwise have been aborted.
quote:I think Matt's reasoning was a little more all encompassing. And no, I don't think Dagonee's answer to it was particularly satisfying. Matt wasn't criticizing the idea that abortion is wrong, he was criticizing a bad argument trying to explain why it's wrong, when the fact is it really all comes down to what your gut feelings are.
The point is that he was criticizing an argument I didn't make. I therefore didn't attempt to answer his argument, but rather to point out that what he "felt" the argument to be wasn't what it was.
When the existence of 500,000 people in the foster system is posited as a reason to support abortion (or, alternatively, to call those who oppose abortion hypocrites), it becomes relevant to examine what the alternative being examined - abortion instead of adoption of those foster children - actually does.
Any attempt to extract the question I posed from the context of that position (or the related position I mentioned on the previous page) is missing the point I was making. I wasn't saying "the foster children would rather exist, therefore abortion is wrong." I was saying, "the foster children would rather exist, therefore their existence is not an argument in favor of legalized abortion."
quote:And many would answer that they would prefer not to exist. This is so common that it is a cliche: "I wish to the lord I'd never been born." The teen suicide rate would also speak to that issue.
If you're going to take that view, then foster status isn't the distinguishing factor about those children.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If you're going to take that view, then foster status isn't the distinguishing factor about those children.
It's not a matter of my view. Your statement implies that a person who is capable of speaking for himself would invariably say they would not prefer to have been aborted, but in fact, the opposite sentiment is not uncommon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your statement implies that a person who is capable of speaking for himself would invariably say they would not prefer to have been aborted
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wouldn't it be evidence that if someone is willing to abort you then they probably wouldn't make particularily good parents?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Your statement implies that a person who is capable of speaking for himself would invariably say they would not prefer to have been aborted
No, it doesn't.
Um, then what exactly was it supposed to imply?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Um, how does it imply "invariably"?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
<Removed. --PJ>
[ October 24, 2008, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Supporting a position to spend sooo much time and money trying to save a child that hasn't even been born yet, spending so much less time, effort and evangelical clout on the kids who really need a helping hand out there in the world.
You don't know what the hell I spend my time on.
quote:It's like I am in a room full of gods, and my idiot mind can't understand the concept of life as fully as you do I guess,
Wow. He speaks truth despite himself.
****
Thor, how many people could you have helped while you wrote your samurai robot epic? How many meals could your marijuana habit have bought for hungry people? You paint with an ignorant, self-righteous brush.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My stance on the issue is that all women should have the right to control their bodies (BTAOE) and abortion is one of those rights however it shouldn't be casually, it should be done within 1 month of the pregancy being discovered, financial incentives offered to have the baby, or failing that incentives to have it and send it for adoption.
Also abortion wouldn't be the problem it is with proper sex education, if teens and adults had safer sex with contraceptives to prevent pregancy the number of abortions would significantly decrease.
Attack the root problem not the symptom.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
Dag wins.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: quote:I do see your point, Dag, but outlawing abortion without also taking measures to deal with the consequences is just poorly thought out.
Sure. You've yet to demonstrate that this is what large numbers of pro-lifers want to do. You've simply thrown it out there as an accusation.
The fact that there are many single issue voters who want abortion outlawed at all costs speaks to this.
More telling, however is the history behind the game of catch-up that the Catholic church has been playing since Roe v Wade. It was once considered an unassailable fact that unwed motherhood was immoral. In many cases it was church teaching that made unmarried women feel that they had no choice but to abort, or live with the stigma of unwed motherhood for the rest of their lives. The church has done an about-face on those "fallen women" that deserved to be put in the Magdalena jails for "getting themselves pregnant." Yes, today there are birthright support centers, but only after increased awareness of such hypocrisy made that position untenable.
quote:Um, how does it imply "invariably"?
Your argument seems pretty pointless if you have to make accommodations for exceptions. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your argument seems pretty pointless if you have to make accommodations for exceptions.
I have no idea what your link is supposed to mean.
My argument doesn't rely on their not being exceptions to the general rule that most foster children would prefer to exist than not.
As to your other points, It's not entirely clear what you're getting at, at least as a response to my post.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Marsupials have it so easy.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Unicorn, knock it off. Now.
Edit -- I am not willing to spend the time editing your posts, and will remove them instead (and have done so now, for those who may end up replying to something no longer there). If things don't change, you will forfeit the chance you have to participate at Hatrack.
--PJ
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My thought is that the abortion debate will only be solved by technology.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: wouldn't it be evidence that if someone is willing to abort you then they probably wouldn't make particularily good parents?
No. I have strong, if anecdotal, evidence to the contrary.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Imagine fetal me in 1975. My birthmother was seriously considering aborting me. She was 16 when she got pregnant. Her parents were alcoholics in the process of getting divorced, and the only help or attention she was getting was from her much older boyfriends, like my birthfather, who was 22. She dropped out of high school, got pregnant, and basically didn't get any help or advice, because no one who was around was sober or cared enough to help. Long story short, her boyfriend, not my dad, nearly threw me out of a window because I was crying all the time, and thereby aggravating him tremendously. As a result, she decided she wasn't capable of taking care of me, and gave me up for adoption when I was about 6 months old. After 10 months in foster care, I was adopted by my loving adoptive parents, who could not have children of their own. They love me very much, and I am thankful for how hard they've tried to be good parents.
I would rather that society had had it's act together and helped a 16 year old girl with a baby, rather than basically forcing her to give me up. However, that's not how it went down.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Imagine fetal me in 1975. My birthmother was seriously considering aborting me. She was 16 when she got pregnant. Her parents were alcoholics in the process of getting divorced, and the only help or attention she was getting was from her much older boyfriends, like my birthfather, who was 22. She dropped out of high school, got pregnant, and basically didn't get any help or advice, because no one who was around was sober or cared enough to help. Long story short, her boyfriend, not my dad, nearly threw me out of a window because I was crying all the time, and thereby aggravating him tremendously. As a result, she decided she wasn't capable of taking care of me, and gave me up for adoption when I was about 6 months old. After 10 months in foster care, I was adopted by my loving adoptive parents, who could not have children of their own. They love me very much, and I am thankful for how hard they've tried to be good parents.
I would rather that society had had it's act together and helped a 16 year old girl with a baby, rather than basically forcing her to give me up. However, that's not how it went down.
I know that for people who actually were adopted, this is a much less hypothetical question, since it would have effected them directly. And I seriously (no sarcasm here) am effected emotionally by Steven's story. But the thing is... that story could simply be replaced with "My mother and father were deciding whether or not they were ready to have a baby... if they had decided to use birth control and or/abstinence, I wouldn't have been born." While I can't cite any specific examples I'm pretty positive there ARE people for whom that is the case. You get the exact same moral issue. Yet would anyone argue that simply not having a child is wrong?
I really do understand the "human life is human life and killing it is murder" argument and I won't argue against it. But while a story like Steven's is touching, the issue it presents is not unique to abortion and doesn't make a good argument.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"I'm so glad that my mom gut drunk at that frat party and had unprotected sex with a random guy she'd never met. If they had been behaving responsibly I might never have been born."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd also like to note:
quote: I was saying, "the foster children would rather exist, therefore their existence is not an argument in favor of legalized abortion."
My point regarding the foster children is not that they prove abortion should be legalized. The point was claiming "abortion is wrong, adoption will solve everything" is poor reasoning and hypocritical. I also specifically stated I was referring only to my own experience. I was never arguing against abortion opponents in general, only against a specific group of people with bad arguments that I happen to have run into a lot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point was claiming "abortion is wrong, adoption will solve everything" is poor reasoning and hypocritical.
Fine. Then "the foster children would rather exist, therefore their existence is not something to be 'solved' by abortion and is not the problem that would be 'solved' by a substitution of adoption for abortion."
quote:While I can't cite any specific examples I'm pretty positive there ARE people for whom that is the case. You get the exact same moral issue.
It's not the same exact moral issue, because you made a charge of hypocrisy against people who did not adopt foster children but oppose abortion and think adoption could solve everything.
Hypocrisy is the espousing of beliefs one does not hold. It is also used informally to refer to acting in a manner inconsistent with one's beliefs. You have leveled this charge against people who believe babies that would otherwise be aborted should be instead be placed for adoption. The problem is that you have failed to account for the entire set of beliefs held by such people and you have applied one stated belief to a similar but different situation.
The adoption advocated by abortion proponents is infant adoption at birth. Their is no shortage of adopters in that situation.
To inject the foster care situation is to change their premise in order to accuse them of hypocrisy.
BTW, a large number of the children in foster care are not eligible for adoption. 2/3 are reunited with their parents. Others, while not reunited, still have parents whose parental rights have not been revoked - prohibiting adoption. There are many stories of people seeking to adopt or permanently foster a child but are not allowed to do so because of the parents' situation. So many of the 500,000 children you posted of to support you charge of hypocrisy could not be 'solved' by an abortion opponent deciding to adopt a child in foster care.
Your attacks on the "bad arguments" rely on incomplete analysis of the arguments and of the actual facts on the ground.
quote:Attack the root problem not the symptom.
I think that applying the basic principles of government as a protector of rights - especially in those unable to protect their own rights - is an attack on the root of the problem. That is, the root of the problem, from my perspective, is the failure to recognize that the fact one exists in a womb is not sufficient reason, in and of itself, to deny one the protection of law.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Lots of people should have lots of babies.
What's that I smell melting?
Smells like the economy.
Lots of people should have lots of babies.
Let us see how fast we can get to 10 billion!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We'll definitely need to do a lot more resource management.
I'm fine with that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Lots of people should have lots of babies.
What's that I smell melting?
Smells like the economy.
Lots of people should have lots of babies.
Let us see how fast we can get to 10 billion!
You seem to go through life arguing with things you make up, rather that what other people actually say.
How's that working out for you?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Unicorn, I'm gonna have to agree with Dagonee. Your posts aren't making a whole lot of sense and seem more geared towards sensationalism than rational argument.
Dagonee: I'm conceding the argument on my use of the word hypocritical. You're right about that. However, I'd note that you're also reading into my posts to find things I didn't actually say. I haven't actually made any arguments in favor of legalizing abortion because there's really no argument to be made.
You also quoted a line from my response to Steve as if it had something to do with the adoption/foster care argument, when that was specifically responding to Steve's situation, which (while similar) is not the same thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gentlemen, may I suggest that "Don't Feed The Trolls" applies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, I'd note that you're also reading into my posts to find things I didn't actually say. I haven't actually made any arguments in favor of legalizing abortion because there's really no argument to be made.
Thank you for clarifying. For the record, this is what I was basing my interpretation of your remarks on:
quote:But it seems absurd to me to treat the two issues as unrelated. The world has finite resources and we can't even properly take care of the children that exist.
I interpreted that to mean that banning abortion would lead to increased strain on our resources. This can be the premise for (1) therefore it should not be banned, or (2) banning abortion creations additional strain on our resources that those wishing to ban it should account for.
My argument was aimed at the idea that banning abortion creates or worsens this problem in a way that creates a moral obligation on those who would oppose it with respect to foster care and adoption.
Other than the mistaken summary I included in trying to explain why the context mattered to the relevance of my initial question, none of my posts rely on an interpretation of your posts as advocating the legalization of abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gentlemen, may I suggest that "Don't Feed The Trolls" applies?
If the troll wasn't treated with joyous cries of welcome every time he hauled himself out from under his bridge, I might not bother.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Obviously, I am in favor of keeping abortion legal. And a lot of that does have to do with keeping extra options open for population management. But I realize this isn't a great argument because the people opposing abortion see that as the same thing as going around killing children/adults simply because they're inconvenient. (By contrast, I see a huge difference between the two actions, but nothing I say can change other people's perspective on that).
So yes, you're right to assume certain beliefs on my part, but I try to distinguish between my beliefs and actual arguments I'm willing to stand by. I've made several disclaimers on the past page or so attempting to clarify that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Awwwwww....
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
I may get flamed for admitting this, but I am both Pro-Choice and LDS.
It may seem like the two just couldn't possibly go together. I believe in free will. I believe God gave all of us the gift to make our own choices and to accept the consequences.
If someone wants to have an abortion that is their choice. The person is using their free will. That doesn't mean I think it is right or that I agree with them. I feel bad that the child will not have a chance at life. But the mother (and hopefully father) have the free will to make that decision. God will judge them for their decisions, not me.
Now what I take offense to is having to pay for an abortion because a mother was not being careful or sleeps around. I do not mind one bit helping out in cases of rape or incest. But for a person who got caught up in the moment instead of being responsible has no excuse. If they make a mistake fine, I shouldn't have to pay for it. It should not be covered by government assistance or by health insurance.
Sorry if I sounded preachy. It was the only way to convey my point the way I wanted.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: If someone wants to have an abortion that is their choice. The person is using their free will. That doesn't mean I think it is right or that I agree with them. I feel bad that the child will not have a chance at life. But the mother (and hopefully father) have the free will to make that decision. God will judge them for their decisions, not me.
How far do you want to extend the principle of allowing people to use their free will?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Blindsay,
The official church positions is that it discourages abortion for its members. There is no stance on it as a legal issue, and it isn't like the church is afraid to take a stance on legal issues, so I think you're fine.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: I may get flamed for admitting this, but I am both Pro-Choice and LDS.
So am I. Like kat says, the Church has never taken a position on the legal status of abortion. It seems the Church believes that this is an issue that is best dealt with by changing peoples hearts rather than changing the laws.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gentlemen, may I suggest that "Don't Feed The Trolls" applies?
If the troll wasn't treated with joyous cries of welcome every time he hauled himself out from under his bridge, I might not bother.
I remain unconvinced that this troll is that troll.
Regardless, there is more than one old-time Hatracker who I welcome back . . . and mostly ignore. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It seems the Church believes that this is an issue that is best dealt with by changing peoples hearts rather than changing the laws.
That's quite a leap to make that conclusion about what the church believes, based on the lack of any position on the matter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: It seems the Church believes that this is an issue that is best dealt with by changing peoples hearts rather than changing the laws.
That's quite a leap to make that conclusion about what the church believes, based on the lack of any position on the matter.
First, I think you are stretching this beyond my intent. I meant only to imply that the Church believes that it (the Church) can better address the issue by changing peoples hearts rather than pushing for political reform. I did not mean to imply that this was a more far reaching position suggesting the Church held that all organizations and individuals would be more effective taking that approach. I don't think this is much of a leap since the church has in fact chosen moral persuasion rather than political involvement on this issue. At least I hope the Church makes such decisions based on how it believes Church resources will make the most difference.
Also, I wasn't making the leap based solely on the Church silence on the political issue. I wish I could find the reference but there was a general conference talk on this a few years back. It wasn't on abortion specifically, but the question was on why the church didn't take a more active role on a variety of political issues and the answer was given that in most cases the church views its primary mission as changing peoples hearts rather than changing laws.
And I will agree that when the Church feels its mission is to change peoples hearts rather than changing laws, it should not be concluded that the Church opposes changing the laws. It simply implies that the Church thinks its efforts are better invested in other avenues to address social problems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Gotcha.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I do love how I get flamed and invalidated.
Yes, you should be able to declare an unborn fetus a child, then force that woman to give birth to it.
praise allah
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: I do love how I get flamed and invalidated.
Yes, you should be able to declare an unborn fetus a child, then force that woman to give birth to it.
praise allah
UF, You could at least acknowledge that the LDS Church hasn't done that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gentlemen, may I suggest that "Don't Feed The Trolls" applies?
If the troll wasn't treated with joyous cries of welcome every time he hauled himself out from under his bridge, I might not bother.
I remain unconvinced that this troll is that troll.
You think he's faking it? If so, he deserves an Oscar.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not exactly. I think it's definitely a troll. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do they give Oscars to forum trolls? Surely there's another name for the award, at least.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We had Hatrack Awards one year. Tony (Scythrop) ran them.
I forget if they had a nickname or not.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Blindsay,
The official church positions is that it discourages abortion for its members. There is no stance on it as a legal issue, and it isn't like the church is afraid to take a stance on legal issues, so I think you're fine.
I feel the same way, I was just a little worried someone would tell me I needed to go talk to my Bishop based on my thoughts. You never know here Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do they give Oscars to forum trolls? Surely there's another name for the award, at least.
OSCars? Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I am worried, that because of the hiccup in the economy, Americans will believe the onslaught of total lies the media force feeds us all day everyday!
If Barack Obama is elected this country will be ruined within days, and then there will be no chance we can overturn Roe Vs. Wade for 4 to 8 years!
If God FORBID somehow ACORN manages to steal the election and forces Barack Obama to win, our job will become harder, but we must never give up the fight!! We must over turn all forms of abortion on a state level!
We can do it! It can be done!
Sarah Palin says that God is in control of the election. I believe in God. John Mccain will win! I should not worry.
They should invent a pill or nano-bot that prevents a man's "Equipment" from working in a sexual way. When he got married, the government could turn his "Equipment" back on!
We need more pro-life presidents like George W. Bush!
That would be great!
Please Lord!
For Christmas?
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do they give Oscars to forum trolls? Surely there's another name for the award, at least.
OSCars?
This post was full of WIN
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: I am worried, that because of the hiccup in the economy, Americans will believe the onslaught of total lies the media force feeds us all day everyday!
If Barack Obama is elected this country will be ruined within days, and then there will be no chance we can overturn Roe Vs. Wade for 4 to 8 years!
If God FORBID somehow ACORN manages to steal the election and forces Barack Obama to win, our job will become harder, but we must never give up the fight!! We must over turn all forms of abortion on a state level!
We can do it! It can be done!
Sarah Palin says that God is in control of the election. I believe in God. John Mccain will win! I should not worry.
They should invent a pill or nano-bot that prevents a man's "Equipment" from working in a sexual way. When he got married, the government could turn his "Equipment" back on!
We need more pro-life presidents like George W. Bush!
That would be great!
Please Lord!
For Christmas?
This post on the other hand is full of lose.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I agree!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do they give Oscars to forum trolls? Surely there's another name for the award, at least.
OSCars?
Come to think of it, that may have been the name Tony gave 'em.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [Q You've yet to demonstrate that this is what large numbers of pro-lifers want to do.
[/QUOTE]
It makes me sick that anyone is Anti-Life, it makes me sick and dizzy to think 40% of our country is Anti-Life. I have been saying for years, "we needed more social controls on the media, video games and rock and roll." I agree, Dagonee! If only they'd listened to us!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I always would sort of start reading Unicorn Feelings' posts and try to, you know, really understand them. But they were so manic that they would sort of leave me disoriented when I attempted to make a cogent response to how dumb they were. I mean, there was always that option where I or anyone else could have really sat down and put my/their mind to it, but that is effort wasted as surely as if I were to lie on my back and pedal my feet around in the air.
But now that we're here now basically there's one real question left: how long is he allowed to unabashedly troll the forum with this dumb schtick.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I always would sort of start reading Unicorn Feelings' posts and try to, you know, really understand them. But they were so manic that they would sort of leave me disoriented when I attempted to make a cogent response to how dumb they were. I mean, there was always that option where I or anyone else could have really sat down and put my/their mind to it, but that is effort wasted as surely as if I were to lie on my back and pedal my feet around in the air.
But now that we're here now basically there's one real question left: how long is he allowed to unabashedly troll the forum with this dumb schtick.
How long can we let, Thor, the dumb troll maniac run free?
I agree I am dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, I too am at a loss to find the word for how dumb I am, but that's probably because I am so dumb.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
haha
It is like watching a person who is so immature as an individual that they opted for engaging upon the worst possible response to a moderator rebuke.
lol, seriouspost: ban unicorn feelings. honestly. this is when you ban someone, fo' real
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thor would much rather be despised than be ignored or dismissed. He's always been that way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't get it. How can you tell that it's this guy Thor, as opposed to some random tube-dweller?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I remain unconvinced that this troll is that troll.
I think I may take that back.
The whiny sarcasm is definitely Thor-like.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Thank you, Katharina. In my ordinary life I am a mild-mannered reporter, but at night I become -- a random sequence of letters!
More to the point, I sometimes teach a class in which there's a component of critical thinking (it's not my usual topic), and on my own I'm exploring something called Nonviolent Communication, which is the art of talking to people on touchy topics without (you hope) pissing them off. We'll see how well it works.
Oh! I want to learn to do that! I actually try, though I am often unsuccessful.
Me too! Let's have an online class!
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
For some reason, which wholly escapes me, I am presently reminded of this passage from Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis:
----------------
"Ransom," it said.
"Well?" said Ransom.
"Nothing," said the Un-man...
..."Ransom," it said again.
"What is it?" said Ransom sharply.
"Nothing," it answered...
...Next time he determined not to answer; but when it had called on him a thousand times he found himself answering whether he would or no, and "Nothing," came the reply. He taught himself to keep silent in the end: not that the torture of resisting his impulse to speak was less than the torture of reponse but because something within him rose up to combat the tormentor's assurance that he must yield in the end. If the attack had been of some more violent kind it might have been easier to resist. What chilled and almost cowed him was the union of malice with something nearly childish. For temptation, for blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he was in some sort prepared: but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of a nasty little boy at a preparatory school. Indeed no imagined horror could have surpassed the sense which grew within him as the slow hours passed, that this creature was, by all human standards, inside out - its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the heart. On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties?...
...Then all at once it was night. "Ransom...Ransom...Ransom...Ransom" went on the voice. And suddenly it crossed his mind that though he would some time require sleep, the Un-man might not. Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I agree. I believe I spent most of my time on Hatrack talking about Trickle down economics was un Christ-like and would end in total disaster.
What a fool I was, what a fool I am.
And I do not believe my posts post rebuke have been disrespectful in anyway to Hatrack, or the moderator.
you guys must be right.
Abortion, Gay Marriage and Stem Cell research are the most important issues facing Christianity today. Fools like me should not be suffered.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think it's Thor. Either that, or someone who really hates the heck out of Thor. The way that personal complaints about working at the bookstore showed up casually in both the "danlo" and "unicorn" posts really was what comvinced me. You'd have to really be invested to throw that stuff in there, because it's a minor detail. It's almost artistic, if it's not Thor. However, I'm pretty sure it's him. Who would be so invested in Thor that they'd go to the trouble to do such a careful and well-thought-out version, that is so accurate, right down to such a tiny detail? He hasn't posted here enough, to affect anyone that much, that they would take such careful notice of him, and go to such trouble to imitate him. Perhaps.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do they give Oscars to forum trolls? Surely there's another name for the award, at least.
OSCars?
Come to think of it, that may have been the name Tony gave 'em.
Surely, the original post was a play on Oscar the Grouch (I could be terminally obtuse at this hour)
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
You guys are freaking hilarious.
Now even I am starting to doubt if I am me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It has been a while. I think it is Thor on slightly less marijuana.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
obvious alt is obvious
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Here is an interesting take on abortion, from Cecil Adams, of Straight Dope fame. I find his point about English common law quite interesting. Here is the relevant quote:
"...quickening. That is, at the point at which fetal movement can be detected, usually around the 16th week of pregnancy. Abortion before quickening, Roe observes, wasn’t an indictable offense in English common law, apparently in line with the Aristotelian idea that the fetus didn’t become a person till sometime between conception and birth."
Doesn't our legal tradition have most of its roots in English common law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Doesn't our legal tradition have most of its roots in English common law?
Yes. That doesn't mean English common law is morally correct. See, e.g., spousal rape.*
*Here I'm referring to the historical English common law, not current.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she "felt life," but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the "Offenses Against the Persons Act," eliminating the above bifid punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws."
I guess what I find odd is that, while the religiously devout people of early America, (and of course, Britain, where many of our ancestors are from, and where we get our legal tradition), as well as those who wrote the Bible, chose not to illegalize or condemn abortion, many/most abortion opponents are against abortion for quasi-religious reasons, and are often very serious about following the letter of Biblical rule. IN some cases, these people are YEC (I know that not all are, so don't think I'm saying that). It's like saying "the founders and transmitters of our faith were right about all these many moral details, but they totally missed the boat about abortion." It seems incoungruous to be both super-passionate about abortion and super-passionate about Christian faith. There's precious little direct support in the Bible, or even Christian tradition, for going ape about abortion. I'm not saying there's no support, just very little direct support.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Any thoughts?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My thoughts is that there is a contradiction in rights between the rights of those unable to protect themselves and the rights of those who wish to control their own self worth.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I think it's Thor. Either that, or someone who really hates the heck out of Thor. The way that personal complaints about working at the bookstore showed up casually in both the "danlo" and "unicorn" posts really was what comvinced me. You'd have to really be invested to throw that stuff in there, because it's a minor detail. It's almost artistic, if it's not Thor. However, I'm pretty sure it's him. Who would be so invested in Thor that they'd go to the trouble to do such a careful and well-thought-out version, that is so accurate, right down to such a tiny detail? He hasn't posted here enough, to affect anyone that much, that they would take such careful notice of him, and go to such trouble to imitate him. Perhaps.
Can you write a short story around this paragraph, because I honsetly was starting to enjoy this from a purely literary quality. It was a very"Catcher in the Rye" narrative.
As for the argument of why those who are against abortion don't adopt more children, the answer is a lot easier to understand than it at first sounds. Have you ever tried to adopt? I mean seriously? The hoops you have to jump, the amount that it costs, and the legal wrangling that just as easily ends in a failed attempt is very prohibitive and time consuming. I would love to have much of this changed to make it easier to adopt and I am not the only one who feels this way. To say you are against abortion and therefore should adopt is not as simple as rhetorical quips.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)