quote:I think I'm still angry about the (perceived, by me) typical conservative stance that pro-choice people have made throwaway decisions, that they have shrugged off all sense of personal responsibility and treat something so important as if it were no more than throwing away a wadded up Kleenex.
Something similar that gets my goat is knowing that 48% of all legal abortions are performed on women who've had one or more, previously. I think that's why some people have the impression you dislike. While abortion's not easy, some might think that it would be worth it to try and avoid getting another.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's abortion, and it's political partisanship, and it's religion, all explicitly rolled into one. Isn't that just a little like taking the covers off the electrical sockets, unscrewing the plate, dipping your long steel prod into battery acid, and ramming it in through the holes straight up to the ceiling, screaming "Impervious to electricity! I'm impervious to electricity" ?
no. I don't think so. If you aren't familiar with those terms or their real-life messiness...
not sure about that electrical impervitude analogy.
posted
Part of the repeat abortions are likely to stem from the fact that people who have risky behavior in the past, continue to have risky behavior in the future. I know that the clinic for which I volunteered tried very hard to give the women contraceptive advice, free OCPs, and as much comfort as possible.
However if one is going to say firmly that the human tissue that is a fetus isn't a person with person-rights, then multiple abortions are as okay as the first. Not the most fiscally intelligent or health-conscious solution, of course.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, one is 11 times more likely to die from delivery than from having an abortion. Though both are far enough under 1% to be negligable.
Frisco, I was speaking strictly of a delivery/abortion at 30 weeks. I don't know how there could be data on this subject since right now women don't electively deliver an unwanted baby... even at 36 weeks and beyond.
An elective deliver at 30 weeks may sound monstrous, but I profer that it is still better than death. Unless one is like those bus drivers in certain foreign countries who are rumored to back up over anyone they have accidentally struck because death is cheaper to settle legally than disability.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was part of the process beforehand, giving finger-sticks (ooh) to them. I spoke to them a little beforehand, usually just a little bit of conversation. Afterwards, I was in the ginger ale-and-cookies room, where I made sure they were comfortable, had all the cookies they wanted, talked to them if they wanted talking, didn't talk to them if they didn't want talking, etc. There were usually about 2 nurses, and 2 volunteers for about 1-6 patients at any given time.
I was just a small part of the process, of course. They usually spoke to a counselor for half an hour to an hour beforehand.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A process I chose to put myself through was exceedingly long and difficult, and -- having just come out of it -- I am currently feeling quite put-upon.
care to share? the sandbox is generally a good place for such things, as I am to understand.
quote: It is exceptionally irrational to then act out in anger to people who had nothing at all to do with that choice.
quote: I need some sleep, some exercise, some disciplined work, and a whole lotta time just staring at the ceiling.
I'm not sure what rationing out your mind to an orange-peel (just guessing) ceiling is going to accomplish. There are some good sparring partners to be found around here, if you look hard enough.
posted
Well, at least ChrisBridges is correct about one thing: I am pro-life. And believe that abortion should be strongly discouraged: through sexual education, unwanted-pregnancy prevention, easing the worries of having responsibility for a child, and moral suasion. There is nothing moral about telling a pregnant woman, "Have a baby, or die from a back-alley abortion. And if you don't die, we'll send you to jail." Or in telling a medical professional, "Save a life and go to prison." Quite the opposite, it is evil. And thus I must also be pro-choice.
4) "If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition."
And michale8 just made such an accusation; I merely threw it back where it originated. Your use of "baby" and "child" instead of 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'baby' shows that you are missing the point entirely. It isn't a matter of where but rather of when human tissue becomes endowed with human rights.
Even on a strictly religious basis, there is disagreement on the when. The Navaho traditionally believe that the soul is joined to the body upon the first smile; ie a human baby is created when someone causes it to smile.
(Which in many ways makes sense: the lack of an ability to smile is usually an indicator of severe brain damage. But not always, there is an even far far more rare condition of a congenital defect in the facial nerves&muscles which prevents an otherwise normal child from smiling)
If a Navaho baby died before it smiled, the event was treated as the equivalent of a miscarriage. If the baby died after it smiled, the body was given a human burial.
Many many traditional cultures treated death before the age of one in the manner of a miscarriage because death was so relatively common in that first year. eg A baby wasn't even named until after the first birthday.
Then we come to the other extreme, PopePiuxIX tossed out a few thousand years of RomanCatholic-Jewish doctrine -- ie human life begins at the quickening; even after the quickening, the fetus was legally treated as property, and human status came after the birth -- cuz he decided after a viewing through a blurry microscope that sperm were homunculi; women were merely the fertile ground within which homunculi grew until birth. Nor can it be said that it was strictly a scientific (even for the times) and spiritual decision. The French birthrate was declining due to use of various birth control methods, and NapoleonIII wanted more French babies to grow up and become more French soldiers. PiuxIX had strong political need of NapoleonIII's military muscle inre the reestablishment of Papal secular power in the Italian peninsula. Then there was his need for NapoleonIII to pressure the French cardinals into voting in favor of Papal Infallibility. Etc.
3) "Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush."
I don't mistake anti-abortionists for pro-lifers; and won't concede them their deceptive self-labeling. No pro-lifer could vote for Bush. Are there a those who oppose abortion who are also pro-life? Obviously, but we are a small minority, and folks like michaele8 are not in that minority.
3) "...many pro-choicers support Bush...and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers."
Rephrase that as "some". As ClaudiaTherese pointed out, there is a problem of semantics: 'many' implies a majority or near; 'some' implies a minority, usually small. Did I say that folks couldn't find other reasons for voting for Dubya? Dubya's appeal is his ability to convince others that their particular DeadlySins are Virtues.
2) "Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not?"
Gotta agree. Some man comes along, plants a claim/homunculi/seed into a woman's fertile field, and the anti-abortionists insist that the government enforce his homesteading. That all of a sudden, a woman's body isn't her own, but rather the property of others. In other words, a step toward the return of slavery, which is the real neo"conservative" goal.
1) "even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience...and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices."
How? They believe thru faith-only that they have the right to define when human tissue becomes a human being. And want to use the government to force their particular belief upon all others.
1) "Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins"
True, and that no one includes anti-abortionists. So why should their beliefs be the standard.
"Can you paint with a wider brush?"
Why? The small number of true pro-lifers like Tom_Davidson are teflon-coated against any of my charges sticking. The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
"Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue..."
You're welcome. I always believe that ya hafta start by talking with folk in their own language; ie before a meaningful dialogue can occur.
posted
Does anyone here actually claim to know as fact when a person becomes a person at a certain point in time without using religion one way or another? Considering that are you really willing to take the risk that maybe you are ending the life of a real person every time you perform an abortion? The whole back alley argument is really irrelevant because all laws are broken but they shouldn't be removed simply because they are broken or the fact that they are broken leads to something worse than whats being banned.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The whole back alley argument is really irrelevant because all laws are broken but they shouldn't be removed simply because they are broken or the fact that they are broken leads to something worse than whats being banned.
I must admit I am curious as to the reasoning behind the bolded part. (I do not necessarily believe that back-alley abortions would be worse than legal ones.)
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I never said they were worse, that's just what has been the assumption made by the pro-choicers.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow, the fact than no one made that claim is the point. Because no one knows is why the risk of taking the life a real person should not be taken.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I believe a person is created upon fertilization and my beliefs are not based on religion. I think that all stages of pregnancy are human development the same way that a 2 year old is different from an 18 year old.
But I think it would be hard to prove my theory to someone in favor of pro-choice. Michael8 said earlier,
quote: Is a newborn baby a human being? Was it human the day before yesterday when it was still in the womb? How about the day before that...how far can we go back to where you would be comfortable in saying that no, it isn't a human being on THIS day?
despite others calling Michael8 a troll, I think this made alot of sense. Personally I cannot and I do not understand how others make this sort of cut and dry black and white decision. So I think that anything fertilized deserves the same rights as a living breathing human. Simply because that line is so hard to define.
NFL- I dont think what I said really answered what you were asking, the only thing that remotely may have answered what you said is that my beliefs are not based upon religion.
quote:The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
Then there is no one better suited to the task:) And hey, you can speak to `em in their own language because it's your native language, too. You just have a slightly different dialect.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, aspectre, I am a terrible disgusting person who favors the return of slavery and is not really pro-life because I don't want babies being chopped into sushi.
Look--would you speed through a crosswalk without looking because there usually isn't anyone there? Would you fire a gun at something you think is a deer, without checking closely to be sure? Even if you have some reason to think that an embryo might not be a human being, why do you insist that people be allowed to take that kind of risk with someone else's life?
I don't assume that you're evil because you hold the political position you do. Why do you assume I am?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the only person who could stand against her would be Dagonee, who I'd also be tempted vote for, despite his lawyerliness.
As if I'd run against CT. Thanks for the compliment, though.
quote:Well, at least ChrisBridges is correct about one thing: I am pro-life. And believe that abortion should be strongly discouraged: through sexual education, unwanted-pregnancy prevention, easing the worries of having responsibility for a child, and moral suasion. There is nothing moral about telling a pregnant woman, "Have a baby, or die from a back-alley abortion. And if you don't die, we'll send you to jail." Or in telling a medical professional, "Save a life and go to prison." Quite the opposite, it is evil. And thus I must also be pro-choice.
4) "If anything, the pro-choice side has been accused of this, the implication that a baby on the inside is an open target but the same child outside deserves recognition."
And michale8 just made such an accusation; I merely threw it back where it originated. Your use of "baby" and "child" instead of 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'baby' shows that you are missing the point entirely. It isn't a matter of where but rather of when human tissue becomes endowed with human rights.
Even on a strictly religious basis, there is disagreement on the when. The Navaho traditionally believe that the soul is joined to the body upon the first smile; ie a human baby is created when someone causes it to smile.
(Which in many ways makes sense: the lack of an ability to smile is usually an indicator of severe brain damage. But not always, there is an even far far more rare condition of a congenital defect in the facial nerves&muscles which prevents an otherwise normal child from smiling)
If a Navaho baby died before it smiled, the event was treated as the equivalent of a miscarriage. If the baby died after it smiled, the body was given a human burial.
Many many traditional cultures treated death before the age of one in the manner of a miscarriage because death was so relatively common in that first year. eg A baby wasn't even named until after the first birthday.
Then we come to the other extreme, PopePiuxIX tossed out a few thousand years of RomanCatholic-Jewish doctrine -- ie human life begins at the quickening; even after the quickening, the fetus was legally treated as property, and human status came after the birth -- cuz he decided after a viewing through a blurry microscope that sperm were homunculi; women were merely the fertile ground within which homunculi grew until birth. Nor can it be said that it was strictly a scientific (even for the times) and spiritual decision. The French birthrate was declining due to use of various birth control methods, and NapoleonIII wanted more French babies to grow up and become more French soldiers. PiuxIX had strong political need of NapoleonIII's military muscle inre the reestablishment of Papal secular power in the Italian peninsula. Then there was his need for NapoleonIII to pressure the French cardinals into voting in favor of Papal Infallibility. Etc.
3) "Not all pro-lifers agree with any of that. Not all pro-lifers support Bush."
I don't mistake anti-abortionists for pro-lifers; and won't concede them their deceptive self-labeling. No pro-lifer could vote for Bush. Are there a those who oppose abortion who are also pro-life? Obviously, but we are a small minority, and folks like michaele8 are not in that minority.
3) "...many pro-choicers support Bush...and many pro-choicers are less than charitable towards single mothers."
Rephrase that as "some". As ClaudiaTherese pointed out, there is a problem of semantics: 'many' implies a majority or near; 'some' implies a minority, usually small. Did I say that folks couldn't find other reasons for voting for Dubya? Dubya's appeal is his ability to convince others that their particular DeadlySins are Virtues.
2) "Funny, that's just how slave-owners felt. How dare someone come along and say that nigras had the exact same rights as white folk, and force us to agree whether we did or not?"
Gotta agree. Some man comes along, plants a claim/homunculi/seed into a woman's fertile field, and the anti-abortionists insist that the government enforce his homesteading. That all of a sudden, a woman's body isn't her own, but rather the property of others. In other words, a step toward the return of slavery, which is the real neo"conservative" goal.
1) "even at worse, they are arguing that human life is being murdered for convenience...and I would think that's a bit different from enforcing religious practices."
How? They believe thru faith-only that they have the right to define when human tissue becomes a human being. And want to use the government to force their particular belief upon all others.
1) "Honest pro-choice advocates must admit that no one knows when personhood begins"
True, and that no one includes anti-abortionists. So why should their beliefs be the standard.
"Can you paint with a wider brush?"
Why? The small number of true pro-lifers like Tom_Davidson are teflon-coated against any of my charges sticking. The anti-abortion anti-lifers need to have their "holier than thou" crud slapped back onto their face.
"Thanks for injecting some much-needed idiocy. Wouldn't want any kind of real dialogue..."
You're welcome. I always believe that ya hafta start by talking with folk in their own language; ie before a meaningful dialogue can occur.
emphasis added
You are without a doubt the single most loathesome person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter online, aspectre. You pretend to have God-like knowledge of the motives of others and of their beliefs, and you sling sh&^ around like a monkey hoping people won't notice he's not big and scary like the gorilla next door. It's easy for you to hate, because you don't hate real people, just cartoon villians you've superimposed over real people.
If you ever deigned to discuss ideas with others, rather than to insult those who have different ideas than you, you might learn something about what makes others tick. As it is, you just underscore your idiocy and lack of empathy.
posted
Wow, I was reading this and thinking to myself, "I simply have to find some way to get CT to marry me," and then she goes and says she's bowing out because she's a crabby hate-machine. Which is a good thing for me because if I ever witnessed her in full-blown awesomeness I'd be sunk... unless I have a thing for hate machines (could be, could be).
It's a shame that she's already in Slash's hootchie stable.
Oh, and that whole husband thing. He leaves issues of Harpers open to specific articles in the bathroom for her. You just can't compete with that.
Oh, and um. Abortions for everyone! No abortions for anyone! Abortions for some, little flags for everyone else!
[ July 06, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but you're wrong. I had originally thought that but then I realized that people your age have been saying it for years and are no farther ahead in line than you were before you started. The secret is a slow build and an air of mystery. I need her to come to the (obvious) conclusions about my many good qualities without pointing them out myself.
It's a careful game I play, old man. Now shoo, you're cramping my style.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Thanks for the compliment, though.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
