posted
Xap, I didn't see Tom disagreeing with that at all. He feels that that right supersedes the others right to have an abortion, so he defines himself as pro-life within that context, for the purpose if the abortion debate.
I LOVE how you try to speak for all American by redefine terms we are using, and then claiming victory when we refuse to use your redefinition... I KNOW what the terms could mean, linguistically, but I also know that there is a common usage that you are refusing to acknowledge.
You are the one who made a push to define pro-life as a stance that could accept abortions, not Tom.
Murder, by definition, is a legal issue, and so the government is involved from the first. I believe that is a good thing, and that the government should be actively involved in discouraging them, and punishing them is they are caught and convicted.
That is worlds away from a complete police state. Not everything is black or white, Xap....but abortion is one of the exceptions to that.
Xap, you should be glad we live in a society that has law and order, but also allows personal freedoms. If we lived in the state that you seem to be constantly advocating, I doubt you would like it very much. It is called anarchy...I'm sure that isn't what you would be aiming for, but that is what you would get.
BTW, anarchists aren't very tolerant of argument that consist almost completely of semantics.
quote:That's precisely what I've been arguing pro-life means... Tom and a few others seem to think that's not what pro-life is all about though.
Hmmm...then I must have completely "misunderstood" this...inless you misunderstood me.
quote: TomDavidson Member Member # 124
posted October 27, 2004 12:38 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The question is, what do you mean?"
Yes. And I am telling you that when I use the phrase "pro-life," I do not mean "people who think a fetus has a right to life but do not necessarily think most abortion should be illegal." Furthermore, I suspect that pretty much no one does.
And this... from Xap...
quote:In the same way, being labeled pro life doesn't mean you favor protecting the right to life in all possible contexts. When used within the abortion debate, it's only referring to the life of the fetus. Thus, in that context, the pro-life position is the view that the life of the fetus is sacred, or in other words, that the fetus has a right to life.
But again, it is incorrect to equate the anti-abortion position with the pro-life position, just because the anti-abortion side of the argument would have you do so. This is because many people are pro-life but not anti-abortion - they think abortion should be legal, even though the life of the fetus is sacred.
I don't agree with you, and I don't consider myself pro-life...I am pro-choice, within the context of the abortion debate.
You tried to singlehandedly re-define the terms, and then used that "new" definition to claim a moral victory. That is intellectually dishonest, and completely transparent.
We don't accept your definition of those terms, within the context of the abortion debate, and I am sure that when people define themselves as pro-life they most assuredly do not agree with your stance at all.
It is understood by all involved in the debate, Xap, and closing your eyes to that doesn't do any good, it just makes you blind to points being made.
And it makes you look ridiculous.
I know you have some good ideas,but this wasn't one of them. Make the points vs the ideas we are discussing rather than trying to tell every person involved that their self-definitions are incorrect, so therefore they must all bow to your definitions of their viewpoints or lose the argument.
I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion on a personal level....but I wouldn't expect Tom or Dag to share the same views I have on this issue. However, we can work together to reduce the number of abortions, and I would not feel that I was not being true to my beliefs.
Now, if they tried to make abortions illegal, then we couldn't work together on it.
posted
"Those ALSO are examples of the government acting to restrict things that it cannot justify with any objective evidence and which it could not convince a its people to agree upon."
Hm. I think the flaw in this argument is the "objective evidence," Xap. Because, of course, the government does meddle and make illegal those murders it can practically limit -- and make no mistake about it, it could practically limit American abortions in a way that it could not practically limit despotism overseas.
But your argument is not that the government shouldn't do everything in its power to do the right thing; it's that it shouldn't do anything unless it can prove it's the right thing. In other words, you expect the government to prove that the life of a fetus has value in excess of its mother's desire to kill it before you will acknowledge that the government has the right to defend that life.
Me, I accept the opposite default. I believe, by default, that a living being has value in excess of anyone's desire to kill it unless that value can be disproved. So if you grant that a fetus is a living being, the burden of proof rests on pro-choice advocates to demonstrate that it is worth killing a baby to keep the mother happy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, anybody but a Mormon would have given up on that joke after the fifty-thousandth time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps this isn't the stronger version of the opposing argument. It's a pretty spindly version of the mannequin, no?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, they don't have the right to berate young mothers going into family planning centers, or to blockade abortion clinics.
I disagree with part of this. While I don't think it is good or right to berate people for having an abortion, I do think that we all have a right to express our feelings about others and their actions.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps this isn't the stronger version of the opposing argument. It's a pretty spindly version of the mannequin, no?
Logic question -- is it a strawman argument if you express the opposing viewpoint as it appears to you? I know that the pro choice people would never couch it in such terms, but from my view point, it looks an awful lot like what Tom said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Logic question -- is it a strawman argument if you express the opposing viewpoint as it appears to you? I know that the pro choice people would never couch it in such terms, but from my view point, it looks an awful lot like what Tom said.
If you want to make the strongest possible case for your perspective, you argue against the strongest opposing case. To pick out a weaker argument to oppose makes one appear, by default, as if one's perspective can only deal with the weaker version.
I personally can beat up a five year old, and so that proves I'm a boxer.
(Not that this is what Tom is trying to do, of course. I think this is more a case of speaking quickly in a casual format.
But the primary reasons women give for having abortions are not along the lines of "wanting to tiptoe through the tulips unburdened by a little pooch around the middle." Rather, women talk more about fear, concern, distress, and depression. We may not think that these are good enough reasons justify destroying a life, but they aren't properly characterized as "seeking happiness."
If you see differently, then you likely haven't talked to many women who have decided to have abortions (or read the literature about decision-making), and the characterizations of what you see could be better informed.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are a lot of reasons to voluntarily abort that are ill-informed, unreflective, poorly thought out, rationalizations, and poor justifications. Some of these decisions are made under duress, with the influence of mind-altering substances, and without sufficient support.
Some aren't.
I think those decisions which are throwaway are few, nonetheless, and this is supported by those who interviewed such women.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara obviously knows a lot more about this than me. (In a complimentary way )
But from my experiences, from women I've talked to and from my mother's experience as a GP (generally, not specifically shared, of course) I think most women who seek an abortion do not do so for convenience's sake, or for their own "happiness".
To assert this, in my opinion, shows a very narrow understanding of what abortion actually means to women.
posted
*holds tongue* You know, imogen, I might actually have some understanding of what abortion means to women. I might even understand what it means to men. I certainly understand what can motivate someone to have one. And let's be clear: while it seems to make light of someone's motivations to refer to it as "happiness," that is generally the primary motivation behind unnecessary abortions.
If you can't cope with the thought of carrying a baby because you can't afford it, or your parents would disapprove, or your boyfriend doesn't want to be a father, or you'd die of shame, or you're not mentally able to take care of yourself, much less somebody else, or you just don't want to be a mom right now and you wouldn't be able to go to college and it would ruin your life -- all of which, I might add, are perfectly good reasons to not want to have a child -- then it boils down to "happiness." Emotional well-being. And I think it actually sells happiness short to suggest that this is a minor thing; it's a major human motivation.
And, yeah, some people have abortions for medically necessary reasons. I've got nothing against that, obviously. And in fact the courts originally left that exception open. It was only when we decided that emotional well-being -- ie. happiness -- counted as something medically necessary that the floodgates popped open.
quote: Rather, women talk more about fear, concern, distress, and depression. We may not think that these are good enough reasons justify destroying a life, but they aren't properly characterized as "seeking happiness."
To me "seeking happiness" perfectly characterizes those reasons. I don't see why to you it doesn't.
Edit: I am almost in complete agreement with Tom on this. Seeking happiness is not selfish -- it's a good thing.
posted
Should we kill poor people because they're poor, and may always be poor, and may, by cultural pressure, make others poor(er)?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I think it actually sells happiness short to suggest that this is a minor thing; it's a major human motivation.
I assumed when you meant happiness you meant something trivial and fleeting.
I assumed this because, in my experience, when people characterise women who have abortions as "seeking happiness" they do not mean that the women are "not mentally able to take care of themselves" or likely to "die of shame" or the other extremes in this situation, but rather that they are being superficially selfish.
I responded to what I felt "happiness" meant. If you indeed meant true happiness including long term emotional, physical and psychiatric health, then I misread your words.
I should also add that concerns about family and "dying of shame" are not hyperbole. Some young women feel that their only alternative to abortion is suicide.
posted
"Some young women feel that their only alternative to abortion is suicide."
*nod* This is very true. However, I have come to believe that such women would be better served by professional counseling than by permitting them to kill what they believe is the source of their unhappiness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
But still, just because some women feel that their only choice is between suicide and X, that in itself doesn't justify X.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, and I'm not saying it necessarily does mph.
Rather all I wanted to contend/clarify is what happiness was being used to mean.
Regardless of whether abortion is justified or not, I think it is vital to have a real understanding of the motivations of those women who do undergo the procedure.
I have come across people who argue against abortion and who honestly believe that women do it because they can't be bothered with being pregnant. That kind of attitude, though it may reflect some women, does not in any way encompass the spectrum of issues that surround the decision to have an abortion. I feel that if you are going to argue to legislate against abortion, you should understand those issues, and not trivialise or dismiss them.
posted
Imogen, you can't assume that because someone does not sanction one solution to a situation, they do not understand what it is like to be in that situation. And you don't know whether or not the people you are talking to in this thread do understand the situation. I know the temptation to think that if they did, they would share your point of view, but it's very possible that they understand it better than you do and have the stance for reasons more concrete than vague abstractions.
posted
Katharina, I don't think I am suggesting that if people understood the motivations they would necessarily be pro-life or pro-choice.
Rather that without understanding them it is impossible to really understand one aspect of the debate.
When I first read Tom's point about "happiness" I did assume that he labelled these motivations a certain way. But when I read his clarification of what he meant by happiness I realised (and stated) I had misread his meaning.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that Scott. But understanding is at least a step to an intelligent discussion.
I would be happier to avoid the trivialisation of women's reasons for seeking abortions in the debate.
On this thread it appears that trivialisation has not happened.
I would also suggest that when many people say "Women get abortions so they can be happy" they do not mean the kind of happiness that Tom and Porter mean.
posted
Imogen, am I correct in saying that you feel people are not taking the women's distress seriously enough?
It's a scary and sad situation to have a life-changing event coming that was not in the plan and that someone may not be ready for. Even if they give the baby up for adoption, the mother's life is changed forever. I agree with that, and I can understand unexpected events changing everything and not for the better.
I think the stance of most people in this thread is that the women's lives were changed from the moment they got pregnant, and getting an abortion doesn't make it dissapear. Taking the life of the baby doesn't erase the pregnancy as if it never happened, but instead adds another layer of tragedy to it.
posted
Katharina: Yes to most people. No to people in this thread (once I understood what Tom meant by happiness)
But I do understand your point and I do agree with it. Abortion does not make things magically disappear, and is not a wonder solution.
Scott: I can understand how you can say that but if you start from that end (every reason is trivial concerned to murder) how can you ever be truly empathetic to a woman in that position?
I'm not saying you have to support abortion. But if you pre-suppose any reason against it is trivial, how can you understand anyone's reason to consider it? And if you can't do that, how can you properly argue against it without really understanding that view-point?
posted
Imogen, how do you know that most people trivialize it? You don't think the people here do, but you know these people. For most of the arguments against abortion, you don't know the speaker but only what they are saying. If you came to this thread and knew only the arguments in it, you wouldn't have any reason to believe that they are taking the distress seriously. How do you know that other people aren't?
You see the decision that the distress is not worth murder, but you don't know if that was the beginning or the conclusion of the thinking.
posted
Kat: I guess even if the end conclusion was that the reasons in themselves are trivial compared to murder, I would like to be assured that those reasons have been considered and not just dismissed because "all reasons are trivial compared to murder".
Here I can see that people do have an understanding of the reasons because they have demonstrated that. So I can appreciate in their minds that they have at least considered the distress before reaching their end decision.
In real life, I have come across people who have very clearly demonstrated that they do not understand, and do not even want to try to understand, any potential reasons.
You know, I'm not saying that if people understand the reasons of women seeking an abortion they will become pro-choice. Rather only when all particpants understand these reasons (as well as other issues) can a meaningful discussion actually be had.
quote: Unless you disagree with the conclusion, why are you concerned that thought has gone into making it?
Because, on many, many issues in life including some I disagree with you about kat, even if I disagree with the conclusion I feel better about the *person* that they are making the right decision for Themselves. I may not agree with them. I may bring up opposing perspectives to make sure they've heard it, but as long as I know that they've truly thought about their decision and struggled in trying to make it, in most cases even where I disagree with them I can support them as a friend.
posted
I guess it depends whether the goal is a discussion or an action. If the goal is a discussion, then it's perfectly fair to limit your interaction to those who you think are speaking from their brain and their hearts together. If the goal is to figure out what to do, then the ideas should be taken on their own merits.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap, I didn't see Tom disagreeing with that at all. He feels that that right supersedes the others right to have an abortion, so he defines himself as pro-life within that context, for the purpose if the abortion debate.
You are giving the definition I proposed - that pro-life is the position where fetuses have a right to life (which of course entails the mother doesn't have a right to abortion, without special circumstances). The definition Tom was giving earlier was that pro-life is the position where mothers should be banned from having abortions. The two are NOT the same (saying you think mothers don't have a right to abort is very different from saying it should be illegal to choose to have abotions.) Thus, if Tom agrees with the position he was giving earlier, he can't agree with the position you just gave now.
But, as I said, I think Tom actually means the position you gave just now, and is confusing it with the position of more extreme pro-lifers who want to enforce that right to life in a stronger fashion by banning abortion legally.
quote:We don't accept your definition of those terms, within the context of the abortion debate, and I am sure that when people define themselves as pro-life they most assuredly do not agree with your stance at all.
See above...
quote:Murder, by definition, is a legal issue, and so the government is involved from the first. I believe that is a good thing, and that the government should be actively involved in discouraging them, and punishing them is they are caught and convicted.
That is worlds away from a complete police state.
Murder exists whether or not the law does - you can murder someone even on a deserted island where there is no law. Thus it is not by definition a legal issue. It can also be a purely ethical issue.
Furthermore, you said earlier the government should "stop murders whenever possible." That IS a police state. After all, we could easily prevent more murders by dissolving the bill of rights and keeping a 24-7 watch over all citizens big-brother style. If you aren't willing to have that then you aren't willing to stop murders whenever possible - you are willing to stop murders only insofar as government doesn't overstep the bounds you think it should have. No?
My view on this is similar to my view on vegetarianism. If I were a vegetarian (at least one sort of vegetarian), I would think killing animals for the sake of food is murder. But does that mean I should want a law passed to ban eating animals - to force my view about the rights of animals onto everyone?
quote:Me, I accept the opposite default. I believe, by default, that a living being has value in excess of anyone's desire to kill it unless that value can be disproved.
See the above example about vegetarians, Tom. Can you PROVE animals don't have a right to life like fetuses would? If not, do you think we should ban eating animals?
You and I both know for a fact that at the time, the issues I mentioned were by no means clear and the right thing easily agreed-upon. Only in retrospect, with our modern values, do they become so clear.
At the time, people like, went to war because they disagreed over the issue, it was so unclear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if I say Kerry doesn't have the right to call Bush an idiot, is that the same as saying it should be illegal for Kerry to call Bush an idiot?
posted
Just because you don't have the right to do something, it shouldn't be automatically made illegal. But it can be made illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. If tresopax is so all fired upset about precise language he shouldn't make vague statements like the one above. Observe the different mental interpretations one can make:
quote:saying you think mothers don't have a right to abort is very different from saying it should be illegal to choose to have abotions
the word "right" can be used in either a legal or a moral sense. The "prolife" political camp would say that mothers shouldn't have a "right" to abort and interpret that as a legally granted "right" that should now be revoked.
If you mean that they don't have a "moral right" to do it, then you are able to split the hair, as in adultery, saying that it is morally wrong, but not illegal.
Only with the latter definition can you do any sort of consensus building. With the former definiton, if you try to build consensus it will fall on deaf ears. You would have to move them to accept the latter definition before you could make progress.
posted
I think I owe imogen a big thank you for her eloquence. She and I seem to be exactly on the same page. And me and Scott R, too, for what it's worth.
So long as "happy" in this statement:
quote:... the burden of proof rests on pro-choice advocates to demonstrate that it is worth killing a baby to keep the mother happy.
is read in a deep, well-developed, mental- stability- and physical-health -oriented, reflective, non-frivolous and philosophically rich interpretation of "happy," then I have no complaints at all.
Like imogen, though, I am of the belief that when most people (present company excluded, as per above clarification) say "to keep a woman happy" it is intended in a more trivial sense.
I offer my sincere apologies for misreading the statement as made here.
[ October 28, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:a deep, well-developed, mental- stability- and physical-health -oriented, reflective, non-frivolous and philosophically rich interpretation of "happy,"
I guess I'm asking what that definition is. It seems like that it is open enough to mean that if the mother thinks having the baby would upset her, then that's a justification for abortion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where have I said that any of this is a justification for abortion?
(Serious question.)
I took issue with Tom's phrasing in the following statement:
quote:... ... the burden of proof rests on pro-choice advocates to demonstrate that it is worth killing a baby to keep the mother happy.
when interpreted in a trivial sense of "happy," as it seems to me that trying to justify "killing a baby to keep the mother happy" is a trivialization of what someone justifying the legality of abortion must do.
Compare this to something like me saying that "the burden of proof rests on Mormons to demonstrate that it is worth threatening women with shunning in order to keep those women barefoot and pregnant."
You could take issue with either the implication that Mormons are shunning women or that Mormons are keeping women barefoot and pregnant without actually disagreeing with what is really going on. The misrepresentation of intention is one matter, the justification of an accurate intention is another. More accurately, one might say that the the burden of proof is on the LDS church to demonstrate that it is worth emphasizing the importance of having children (even if this has resulted in a relatively quite high rate of family bankruptcy and maternal depression in Utah, for example, if one wished to argue this) in order to serve God completely.
As I said previously,
quote:I think there are a lot of reasons to voluntarily abort that are ill-informed, unreflective, poorly thought out, rationalizations, and poor justifications. Some of these decisions are made under duress, with the influence of mind-altering substances, and without sufficient support.
Some aren't.
I think those decisions which are throwaway are few, nonetheless, and this is supported by those who interviewed such women.
I still may not agree with those decisions -- I just think it would be crass to misrepresent them. Which, in the fuller sense of "happy," does not happen.
They still may not be good enough reasons to destroy a life. At least those reasons aren't being misrepresented as a strawman, that's all.
Make sense?
[ October 28, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* That makes sense. It's asking for respect for the other viewpoint.
-------
Is there a way to respect something without granting it legitimacy? I think that some see abortion as such a monstrous act that giving respect to the reasoning for it is like giving respect to an abuser's reasoning for hitting his kids. I know it's a laden analogy, but it's the closest I could think of.
quote:We may not think that these are good enough reasons justify destroying a life, but they aren't properly characterized as "seeking happiness." [in the lah-di-dah sense]
quote: You are giving the definition I proposed - that pro-life is the position where fetuses have a right to life (which of course entails the mother doesn't have a right to abortion, without special circumstances). The definition Tom was giving earlier was that pro-life is the position where mothers should be banned from having abortions. The two are NOT the same (saying you think mothers don't have a right to abort is very different from saying it should be illegal to choose to have abortions.) Thus, if Tom agrees with the position he was giving earlier, he can't agree with the position you just gave now.
Not true, Xap, that isn't what I was really saying....and I should know, as I was saying it.
I don't think that is what I was saying at all, and I don't think that is what most people, within the confines of the abortion argument, mean when they say pro-life.
To me, and every person i have ever debated this with, pro-life means they are for outlawing abortion, and pro-choice means not outlawing abortion.
The problem with labeling pro-lifers as anti-abortion is that a lot of people like me are anti-abortion but pro-choice....I hate abortions, but I don't think it is my opinion that matters.
So that label would not be any more true than the pro-life one is now.
And you can't call pro-choice people pro-abortion either, because of the same reasons....not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion, they may just think a womans right to privacy, or her right to her own body, is more important than the possibility of life that is within her womb.
So your labels aren't any better than the ones we use now.
Don't make me quote a dictionary at you, Xap, because I will...
MPH:
quote: I disagree with part of this. While I don't think it is good or right to berate people for having an abortion, I do think that we all have a right to express our feelings about others and their actions.
Express away, just keep it out of their faces. You (not you specifically, you know what I mean.. ) don't have any right to interfere with any legal procedure, nor do you have the right to block access to such buildings/treatment centers.
At the BigE this year (the NE version of a State Fair, which is a huge draw every year) there was a booth in one of the state buildings that was a pro-life booth. Complete with pictures, and the people manning the booth were pretty obnoxious to me and my wife. They had no idea of my views, and some of their information was just completely false and misleading...typical shock value stuff, nothing I had never see before. But the way they went about "informing" people was way over the line.
There were people with their little kids there, and they would just begin a conversation with the family, spouting all sorts of facts and figures, regardless of whether the family wanted to discuss it or not.
I'm not saying that they should have been muzzled (although I would have LOVED to do that to them), but there is a time and place for everything, and the BigE wasn't it....so when they started to bother me, and it was too crowded for me to move away immediately, I sort of enjoyed bursting their bubble. They weren't particularly informed, nor eloquent, so I made fools of them, and when I left there were a number of people giving them a hard time about their choice of venue.
Normally I would have left them in peace, but they wouldn't leave me alone when I asked them to. so I don't feel bad about it at all.
My point is theis...you are free to have whatever opinion you want, but so am I...and if I don't want to discuss it with you, you can't force me to do so. And if you DO corner me in a situation I can't avoid, better be prepared to face the concequences.....I won't be happy, and I will fight back.
The funniest part of it was that I agreed with a lot of their starting points, but they were so far out of bounds with their approach that they completely alienated everyone who was anywhere near us that day.
And from what I heard recently (I have a friend who works at the fairgrounds) they have been told that they won't be allowed back next year. They have the right to be heard, but not the right to berate others in violation of the required rules of conduct that all booth vendors must follow.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I KNOW what the terms could mean, linguistically, but I also know that there is a common usage that you are refusing to acknowledge. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
