posted
Resh, why are you even participating in this thread? You aren't here to discuss anything, you're just here to call people babykillers. You haven't contributed anything beyond your feelings on the issue and how that translates into how you think everyone who is pro-choice is evil.
For someone who doesn't appreciate vitriolic responses, you certainly indulge in them quite a bit more than, well, anyone else here.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
No, you're calling people nazis and berating them for being killers.
Just stop. Jesus. Before the thread gets locked. You've already shipwrecked yourself, now don't go crashing the tea party for everybody else.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Please stop, we don't like being called names! Just because we support the execution of unborn children at the whim of the child's mother doesn't make us Nazis!"
No it doesn't make you Nazis. That's an unfair comparison. The Nazis killed and supported the killing of unborn children, born children, mothers of children, fathers of children, and anyone else they didn't like. Pro-choicers restrict their support of killing to only the first group. So you have a point. I'll stop comparing you to Nazis.
So I haven't contributed anything beyond my fellings on the issue? What do you want, facts? Unfortunately I don't have the facts on my side, only you do. 40 million dead children; that's not a fact, that's an inflammatory remark designed to harm. But a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby=plain fact, and how could I think otherwise? What's wrong with me? The thought of all those dead innocents must be affecting my emotions, because all I can do is spout off a bunch of negativity toward those who are complicit in those killings.
I guess I shouldn't express those feelings, because the thread might get locked. Not because I've been cursed at, called names, and basically told to shut up because I have the audacity to say something that offends your cherished notions of a woman's equality to mate with whomever she wants without having to suffer the biological consequences. Did someone point out that there is some immorality there? Denounce him for trying to make us subject to his definition of morality. Oh, wait, there are more of these people who want to impose their morality on us, and this is a democratic society? What a pickle! Let's just subvert the democratic process and make them subject to our morality instead.
This is evil, and if you want to accuse me of... whatever, for saying so, then fine. But I didn't make it evil. I'm just pointing it out. And the cries and denunciations become most shrill when they come from the accused who is guilty. So let me have it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, you've already made it perfectly clear in previous posts that it's okay for men to sleep around and not women. You've made it perfectly clear that you think anyone who is pro-choice is a babykiller (and how? Many pro-choicers haven't had abortions. Many pro-choicers don't even have uteruses [uteri?]). We know this. We know you don't want to discuss anything. Please let everyone else continue the discussion free of your rantings.
posted
By the way, Eros, and I said this before in a lengthy discussion about abortion on another thread, I don't think pro-choicer's are evil. I think they are misguided and delusional. Unless you support abortion with full awareness that what is being aborted is possibly, and quite probably a person. In that case, yes I do think you are evil. But most pro-choicers, even while somtimes admitting to that possibility, do not fully comprehend what it is that they are admitting.
While I may be wrong about that, I refuse to think otherwise, because then I would have to entertain the notion that either pro-choicers really are evil or that my definition of evil is wrong. I would assume the latter before the former. I don't think people are bad, except for the few that are. But I also am not exactly willing to abandon the idea that killing innocent people for mere convenience is not evil. And so, I am am left with "mis-informed and delusional."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, pH, but those things are not true. I never said it's ok for men to sleep around. I just said once that there are simple biological consequences that women must accept that men, right or wrong (wrong) oftentimes do not. Killing the child should not be an alternative to that imbalance.
Also, I said that anyone who is pro-choice is is complicit in what amounts to killing a baby. There is guilt there.
And finally, my post just above this one is a caveat to the "babykiller" accusation. The level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true. This is why in face-to-face encounters, I am nearly always very calm, and the pro-choicers is red-faced screaming and cursing, and displaying body language as though prepared to fight. And then, and this is the best part, I will invariable be accused of displaying foaming-at-the-mouth anger. It is quite a display, and it's uncanny how I see it played out on internet forums.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
I'm a pro-lifer. The things you say are "glaringly obvious" and "certainly true" are not nearly as cut-and-dried crystal clear as you make them out to be. I don't believe you when you say you are typically the calm, rational party in these discussions.
If you can't be such in an impersonal discussion, why on Earth would you be such in a face-to-face? Your participation in this thread does nothing to persuade or even educate anyone, and makes it easier for those who disagree with you not to listen.
Please stop.
-----------------
Honest about what, exactly?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jutsa. Why shouldn't I be? The reason these things always go the way they do when I get involved is because of that. So many pro-lifers get browbeaten and intimidated into watering down their viewpoint because of the sort of tactics Eros, Sam, and Kwea use. I know I'm am going to be told that I am the one using intimidating tactics, with the Nazi comparisons, and perhaps that is correct. But I actually draw the comparisons out, and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!" But somehow I manage not to buckle under such withering assaults.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize I'm a late comer to this thread but I think this thread would be more interesting without the screaming and recriminations. It would be even more interesting if we stuck to the original topic about bribing women not to abort.
No one wants abortions. Not even pro-choice people.
No one likes to be told what they can and can't do. Not even pro-life people.
The only difference is which you value more. Life (or potential life) vs free choice. But we all value both.
So everyone take a deep breath, we're all friends here, and play nice.
posted
How am I not being calm and rational? Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
You don't think this is so cut-and-dried, crystal clear, and neither do I. I am aware of the negative consequences that this imperfect world has for a woman denied access to a legal abortion. I just have a clear and quite logical way of determining which decision must be made.
Fetus=Peson: yes, no, or maybe? If (fetus=person: no), Pro-choice. If (fetus=person: yes or maybe), pro-life. No way to know that (fetus=person: no). Therefore, Pro-life. My assesment of pro-choice: misguided and delusional or evil. I then use my Nazi comparison to establish why abortion would be evil, and my logical construct to establish why abortion would be logically invalid. When my opponents are faced with that, they have only two options: misguided and delusional, or pro-life (unless you are eros, who apparently opted for "evil.")
So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
$500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fine idea, except our native population is barely keeping even as it is. we don't want to encourage them to stop reproducing.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Excellent idea, especially since the procedure is reversible.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I then use my Nazi comparison to establish why abortion would be evil, and my logical construct to establish why abortion would be logically invalid.
A more easily answered question I've rarely encountered in this discussion.
And as for why it's not as crystal clear as you're making it, for example...
Not everyone believes that personhood is an either/or proposition. If you don't believe someone is a person or is not, no shades of gray, then the rest of your little formula goes straight out the window.
Your average pro-choicer simply does not bear comparison to a hate-filled, murderous Nazi. That much is obvious. You going ahead and making the comparison certainly belies your claims of calm rationality. Equally obvious.
quote:Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
Hey, you can guess at what other people are thinking and feeling by what they type. You've said as much. Don't try to bust my chops for doing the same.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Excellent idea, especially since the procedure is reversible.
While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
Pixiest, I do not believe your statement is true.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
As has been said several times already:
1.) There are significant funds available to cover the cost of pregnancy, both from the state and from adoption agencies. 2.) The $500 is only given to women who put the child up for adoption. 3.) As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
quote:At least you're openly honest about it.
Yeah, you could learn a lesson from him.
Not about being honest about your own point of view, but about the points of views of others, Mr. Black and White.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
I think he probably meant defraying the cost to the adoptive parents, to encourage more people to adopt. I have no idea what that costs, so I don't know if $500 would make much difference to it.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that we don't need in encourage more people to adopt newborns -- we already have more demand for them than supply.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I'm curious about how much the demand exceeds the supply, and how that stacks up against the current abortion rate, but I have no idea how to go about finding that out.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
IIRC, adoptions of infants hardly need to be encouraged. Babies are in demand; toddlers less so; children even less; teenagers hardly at all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
I think he probably meant defraying the cost to the adoptive parents, to encourage more people to adopt. I have no idea what that costs, so I don't know if $500 would make much difference to it.
It costs anywhere from $2,000 to $40,000 out of pocket, and, as others have already said, there's still more people who want to adopt infants than infants available for adoption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: which of my statements do you disagree with? I'm assuming the line addressed to me is seperate from the rest of your post because I didn't say vasectomies are reversable. They're very often not.
And in any event, it puts an obstical in the way of our native population reproducing which is a huge problem.
Scott: The stats on that site are old and, in many cases, very questionable. It also quotes from some anti-adoption books. (how can anyone be anti-adoption??)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest is correct about some of the numbers on the site I linked being old.
I'm actually having a hard time finding adoption statistics that use data from the 2000s that address the adoptee/adoptor ratio.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
The numbers I hear quoted are closer to "often" or "mostly" with regard to how reversible a vasectomy is.
Even a 1% chance of reversal, though, is much more reversible than an abortion is.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: Our native population is made up of *all* of races. I'm two of them myself.
Our current population growth is made up entirely of immigration. This is fine, except it's happening faster than assimilation can occur and we're at risk of being overwhelmed.
Of all people, Rivka, I would think you would understand the desire to retain one's culture (even as we fight to improve it.)
But this is a topic for another thread.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It also quotes from some anti-adoption books. (how can anyone be anti-adoption??)
I didn't read the materials quoted section, except to note the year, so I don't know about the anti-adoption flavah you saw; but doing more research on this topic, I see that there are a lot of anti-adoption websites out there.
I don't know that they're anti as far as the intent behind adoption is concerned; they seem to mostly be anti-adoption agency.
quote:Our current population growth is made up entirely of immigration. This is fine, except it's happening faster than assimilation can occur and we're at risk of being overwhelmed.
What do you mean by overwhelmed? Financially? Culturally?
The word 'assimilated' indicates to me that you mean that their culture and "our" culture are somehow at odds. And "our" culture should be the one to assimilate them-- you seem to imply that such assimilation is a good thing.
I do not necessarily think that cultural assimilation is always good.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: Culturally. Most of the billboards near where I live are in spanish. My favorite radiostation went spanish a year and a half ago (it changed back, thankfully).
And it's not just here in San Jose. My tiny little Arkansan home town will soon be mostly spanish speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I love spanish. It's a beautiful language. I get along well with native spanish speakers. And I love the fact they've brought their food with them which I love more than possibly any other food.
But I also love my own language and culture. Especially equality for women and the growing tolerance and even acceptance for les/bi/gay people.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And as for why it's not as crystal clear as you're making it, for example...
Not everyone believes that personhood is an either/or proposition. If you don't believe someone is a person or is not, no shades of gray, then the rest of your little formula goes straight out the window.
But that's not how I put it. I said fetus=person; yes, no, or maybe. Did I forget any possibilities there? But let me be sure here... you seem to be saying that my formula doesn't apply if "you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Is that your final answer?
quote: Your average pro-choicer simply does not bear comparison to a hate-filled, murderous Nazi. That much is obvious. You going ahead and making the comparison certainly belies your claims of calm rationality. Equally obvious.
My comparison is apt. Most Nazi's were not hate-filled and murderous. They were convinced that Jews and homosexuals were less than human, and so it was not immoral to kill them. Another common theme is that they were aware that their cause was righteous, and so the old morality could be discarded for the sake of the cause. This is what has been happening in America and the West for several decades now. By whatever means neccessary, the goals of the left must be achieved. The ends justify the means. Usually this means subverting the democratic process.
quote:Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
quote:Hey, you can guess at what other people are thinking and feeling by what they type. You've said as much. Don't try to bust my chops for doing the same.
I was speaking from experience, not from anything any particular person in this particular thread has done (Kwea notwithstanding. That person has anger issues.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
So basically what you are saying is "Shut up, moron."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
So basically what you are saying is "Shut up, moron."
Your inability to distinguish the two is what makes it so hard for you to understand why no one values your input in this thread.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your inablity to see how Samprimary wasn't trying to make any argument but was rather telling me that I simply shouldn't speak anymore, and your inability to see that you saying that no one values what I have to say is basically just another way of telling me that I simply shouldn't speak anymore, is what keeps me coming here. The endless entertainment!!!
[Edit] I'll put it more plainly: "Your inability to distinguish the two ," (Moron...) "is what makes it so hard for you to understand why no one values your input in this thread." (...shut up.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic understanding that you're missing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, Resh, is this: your assigning moral qualities and attitudes to what other people have said does not make them accurate.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: In any event, I'm a fan of the "Melting Pot" theory of America.
I'm not especially. And that is precisely because I value my culture, and object to it being swallowed up by the larger American one.
I have no problem with our population increase coming entirely from immigration. That would be one way to deal with it.
Anglos came a few hundred years ago, and essentially wiped out the then-native tongues. While speaking Spanish is personally uncomfortable for me (I have trouble with languages in general, other than my native English), I have no moral or cultural objection to such a transition. In many ways, it seems ironically just.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not in favor of legislating the melting pot.
I am in favor of everyone living with each other as harmoniously as possible.
I am in favor of encouraging cultures which are outside of mine to flourish within the United States, [EDIT] as long as they don't maintain an attitude of entitlement, priority, or aggression.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: And you don't fear we might lose the tolerance shown by American culture to its plethora of sub-cultures?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The basic understanding that you're missing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, Resh, is this: your assigning moral qualities and attitudes to what other people have said does not make them accurate.
When did I ever say or do this? Are you like one of those guys(or girls) who talks about how much he hates Bill O'Reilly, but when pressed, admits he's never seen the show? Because I don't think you've read a single one of my posts! I think you've only read what other people have said to me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: In any event, I'm a fan of the "Melting Pot" theory of America.
I'm not especially. And that is precisely because I value my culture, and object to it being swallowed up by the larger American one.
I have no problem with our population increase coming entirely from immigration. That would be one way to deal with it.
Anglos came a few hundred years ago, and essentially wiped out the then-native tongues. While speaking Spanish is personally uncomfortable for me (I have trouble with languages in general, other than my native English), I have no moral or cultural objection to such a transition. In many ways, it seems ironically just.
Agreed. If we're not willing to fight for our culture anymore, we deserve to lose it, and we will. I find handing over large swaths of America to the Mexicans preferable to some of the other alternatives.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
The numbers I hear quoted are closer to "often" or "mostly" with regard to how reversible a vasectomy is.
Not even close to mostly. There is a significant percent that aren't. Last I heard it was about 25% of them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's not how I put it. I said fetus=person; yes, no, or maybe. Did I forget any possibilities there? But let me be sure here... you seem to be saying that my formula doesn't apply if "you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Is that your final answer?
First of all, drop the final answer bullcrap. You're not some sort of arbiter who decides when the question has been answered here, OK? You're just a guy participating in the discussion here. You're not the Moderator of Online Abortion Discussions.
Second...the 'maybe' in your question refers to "maybe a fetus is a person, or maybe it is not". It does not refer to a sliding scale of personhood with respect to preserving a life. For example, convicted rapists or child molestors. Clearly, those are still people. Equally clearly, some people view them as less than other people.
By a similar leap, a person could honestly believe that a cluster of cells in a woman's womb is still "people", but so low on the personhood sliding scale so as not to have its life thwart a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
This is just one example of the kind of gray areas here you're triviliazing, and then shrilly demanding people accept as irrelevant. Thus I'm not going to answer your deliberately loaded question...and I'm pro-life. That alone should be some sort of indicator for just what kind of good you're doing.
quote:My comparison is apt. Most Nazi's were not hate-filled and murderous. They were convinced that Jews and homosexuals were less than human, and so it was not immoral to kill them.
I don't care what lies they told themselves. Most Nazis were hate-filled, and many of them were murderous, because they decided to believe that Jews, gypsies, and many others were subhuman, thus justifying anything that would otherwise be wicked in pursuit of their extermination. The lies they told themselves are a symptom of the hatred, not an indicator that it wasn't there. Another fundamental point you're overlooking to justify your comparisons and questions.
quote:By whatever means neccessary, the goals of the left must be achieved. The ends justify the means. Usually this means subverting the democratic process.
Oh, please. Just how much of a party hack are you? The Right doesn't do disgusting things sometimes in pursuit of political and moral goals? Hello! Jim Crow, anyone? McCarthyism? Watergate?
quote:I was speaking from experience, not from anything any particular person in this particular thread has done (Kwea notwithstanding. That person has anger issues.)
I was speaking from experience too. Unpleasant experience with you, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
