posted
At another time and place, I would be happy to expand on kmboots' post by listing a series of other dyads in which we do not think that keeping one person alive is sufficient to constrain another person's sovreignty. This is another reason why Reshpeckobiggle's scheme (fetus=person: yes) Pro-life (fetus=person: maybe) Pro-life may not be adequate, at least not as "pro-life" is being used.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to go look at her earlier one. This one... yes. The maybes do overlap. That is where one must weigh the consequences. I never meant to imply this is an uncomplicated issue. I just have an uncomplicated way of deciding how to feel about it.
(fetus=person: no) Pro-choice (fetus=person: yes) Pro-life (fetus=person: maybe) Pro-life There is no way to determine that the first premise is true. Therefore: Abortion=killing of person.
[Edit] Mother dies during pregnancy-maybe [end edit] Abortion=dead baby. Therfore, mother maybe dies.
It sucks, but that's life.
[edit] I know that wasn't a prefectly constructed logic tree, but you get the point.
posted
I know, pH. I was too, but I miswrote. I'm going to fix that.
pH, boots, and CT. This thread just got a whole lot nicer.
Claudia, I can imagine some of the same, but my objection is to the willful destruction of the fetus. I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby. This is where a reasonable person can place the varying levels of possibility of abortion=killing beneath the certainty of a woman's sovereignity. But as I said, I don't think any level of possibilty of intentionally killing an innocent person is less important than any of it's consequences.
Was that redundant?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, at what point is the danger to the mother's life great enough that abortion would be okay to you? Is there such a point? If not, why does the fetus get more protection than the mother (since you've deemed that if there's a very small chance that it's a person, you err on the side of caution)?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'll have to go look at her earlier one. This one... yes. The maybes do overlap. That is where one must weigh the consequences. I never meant to imply this is an uncomplicated issue. I just have an uncomplicated way of deciding how to feel about it.
I can appreciate simplifying things for your own moral consideration; without generalizations and simplifications, we'd be stuck in an endless whirlwind of what-ifs. At some point, one has to stand by a general rule in order to have an opinion.
The problem is that you presented your opinion as a moral absolute, that should apply to everyone, and that everyone who disagreed with you was morally deficient. And while I have no doubt there are other pro-lifers on Hatrack who feel those who are pro-choice are morally deficient, they aren't voicing their opinions as a condemnation, because that isn't conducive to discussion.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby.
I can. Several of them. And, remember that, for some of us, it isn't a "baby" it is a "potential baby."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby.
Then you're not trying. I'll offer one that, medically speaking, happens all the time: complications during the pregnancy, something goes wrong during labor.
The chance of the baby surviving the birth is deemed, say, 10%, with serious birth defects. The chance of the mother surviving the birth, if the pregnancy is not immediately terminated, is, say, 50%.
Abort or not abort? Yes or no. Yes or no. Ad naseum.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Addressing pH and Rakeesh both: You do your best to save both. You do nothing to harm either, If you make the argument that not aborting the baby is doing harm to the mother, then you weigh that against the harm done to the baby, which is life ending, regardless of the baby's chances in the first place. Remember the Hippocratic Oath.
Birth defect should have nothing to do with it, if you ask me. That is a very slippery slope.
Ok, Eros too: Yes, these are moral absoulutes to me. I am using a moral absolute to determine that killing an innocent person is wrong. That is why pro-life falls over two of the equations. This is an argument about right and wrong, no way to avoid it. A separate argument is about the issues implications in Law.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are not moral absolutes to everyone. It is often not about right or wrong. Sometimes it is about wrong and less wrong. Just because you can make it simple for yourself, doesn't mean it is simple. Or that it should be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Addressing pH and Rakeesh both: You do your best to save both. You do nothing to harm either, If you make the argument that not aborting the baby is doing harm to the mother, then you weigh that against the harm done to the baby, which is life ending, regardless of the baby's chances in the first place. Remember the Hippocratic Oath.
OK, well you've answered the question then. You clearly value the baby's life more than the mother's, since he/she has a very poor chance of surviving the birth in any case, and the mother has a very poor chance of surviving the birth as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Birth defect should have nothing to do with it, if you ask me. That is a very slippery slope.
Actually, I agree that just 'birth defect' shouldn't be enough.. I should've been more specific. When I say "birth defect" I don't mean something mild like a birth mark, I'm talking something gut-wrenchingly sad just to read about, like anencephaly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Resh, at what point is the danger to the mother's life great enough that abortion would be okay to you? Is there such a point? If not, why does the fetus get more protection than the mother (since you've deemed that if there's a very small chance that it's a person, you err on the side of caution)?
-pH
Not to nitpick, but why use this line of argument? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, you know.
Ugly fact: there are many pregnancies that occur that wind up aborting with zero interference from anyone. The egg and sperm combine, the egg implants itself to the lining of the uterus, and a week or so later the body expels it for one of a number of reasons, and most of them not because of some factor like drugs or alcohol or anything (miscarriage). It just happens. Other times, the egg fertilizes but doesn't implant in the uterus, and even worse happens (eptopic pregnancy)
I'm not challenging anyone or anything like that, but since those things happen in comparable numbers to abortions, and depending on what you read possibly an order of magnitude more often, I find that talk of it equalling life gives a pretty horrific view of the process of conception. I was once told that if you are a sexually active woman, the chances are very high (some percentage higher than half) that this could have happened to you and you don't even realize it. Not every miscarriage results in sickness or dilation or any other noticable symptom outside of a heavy period (not to say that a heavy period means a miscarriage, by the way).
Conversely, we have recently seen medical science able to maintain a less-than-25-week-old birth. There was a time when 25 weeks was not outside of the realm of consideration for abortion (I could be mistaken, it may still not be). This simply must have an impact, but the depth of that impact is going to depend on the subject. Realistically, this is not the kind of medical breakthrough that means it is immediately an option in every case of a troubled pregnancy, nor does it mean that the odds are even close to "good" yet. However, it's been done, and that changes plenty.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about value, pH. It's about actively killing one thing vs. having something die despite your best efforts. Of course it's not as cut and dried as that. I am describing a moral framework from which I think decisions ought to be made. My logical structure, while not acceptable for some of you, has one thing going for it, and that is that it is clearly defined. It's much better to have a clear goal when dealing with very murky issues. The only other crytstal clear position you can have is unfettered abortions, up to the moment of birth (i.e; partial-birth abortions.) This is a completely amoral starting point.
Anyway, if you're a doctor, or a woman in a situation like one of the ones illustrated above, you need to be facing a certain direction. What we are dealing with is not a wrong and less wrong decision. It is a moral and amoral (note I do not say immoral; there is a difference) decision.
A question; what general destination do you guys think I have in mind? Never mind how I'm going about anything. Is it a destination of morality and something that is good and right, or one of evil, oppresion, or just plain meaness? Something like that? Do you think my intentions, at the very least, are for the sake of goodness? How about pro-lifers in general?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, re. the Hippocratic Oath and playing God.
To pick a crazy example out of the air - if conjoined twins were born (we‘re talking about two people relaying on one body, after all), and it was unlikely that both would survive together, but one twin had a chance of living - only if the other twin died.
Option A The chance of both surviving conjoined is about 0.5%. Option B. One twin has a 50% chance of survival, with a reasonably healthy body. Option C. The other twin has a chance of 10% plus disabilities (a criteria which you‘ve discounted anyway).
Would you see it as totally wrong for the doctors to do what they could to save one, using the odds that one has a better chance of living? Or would you rather he ‘did no harm’ and both likely died? Now in this case, both are babies. (Does that make a difference to you?)
I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B. I’m assuming you’d go for A, but I‘d like to know for sure.
This obviously has not a lot to do with abortion. I'm just interested.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a crazy example. O.5% chance of survivng? You have to do something. To do otherwise would be "Do no good!" If you put forth a similar situation in which there is a .5% chance that both the mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed, but 50% chance of the mother surviving with an abortion, I guess an abortion is in order. I'm not a doctor and I don't know if that is a very common situation (I doubt it), but I can say that that is the way to go, and with confidence, because I have a moral compass by which I guage the rightness of that decision.
Rakeesh, I meant to address this earlier, about retracting my statement about your argument being pathetic and incoherent. I won't retract it, because I think it is still essentially true, but I will admit that it was to harsh and I didn't need to say it that way.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Justa, I was asking because it sounded as though Resh valued the baby's life over the mother's. Apparently, I was correct.
-pH
Okay, that clears up context. Carry on. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not a crazy example. O.5% chance of survivng? You have to do something. To do otherwise would be "Do no good!" If you put forth a similar situation in which there is a .5% chance that both the mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed, but 50% chance of the mother surviving with an abortion, I guess an abortion is in order. I'm not a doctor and I don't know if that is a very common situation (I doubt it), but I can say that that is the way to go, and with confidence, because I have a moral compass by which I guage the rightness of that decision.
This moral compass of yours. At what percentage does it switch from "ok to kill one to save the other" to "do nothing, even though it will probably kill the mother"? And please keep in mind that all medical prognostic percentages are approximations.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually know a woman who was in a similar situation as Bella Bee's example. She took fertility drugs and was pregnant with quads. Based on her history, her doctor said, in his experience with his abilities, atleast one would die, probably all and so she should abort one, preferable 2 or 3, to give the best chance of survival. She said no and he referred her to a new dr. So, I would not consider Bella's example to be way out there. I got in trouble because I said without hesitation that I would abort 2.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a significant difference in your example, scholar. Usually, all the fetuses in such a situation have equal chances of survival.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see the value in having a "crystal clear" position on an issue that is nuanced. Failing to acknowledge that a situation is not crystal clear (and very few matters are) has the advantage of making us feel good and righteous about our choices but it doesn't necessarily help us make good choices. It also tends to prevent us from seeing the situation from different points of view or being able to converse effectively or even persuade someone to see it from ours.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
To me (fetus = person: yes) Pro-choice. How does this work in your equation? I am just curious.
On page 6, one of the points I made was about educating teenagers that sex is natural . I also said that if we taught them that and taught them all about sex (inferring that we teach them all about the consequences, etc.,) openly and honestly they would be able to make a more informed decision. Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
Rakeesh, to answer your question about my statement (that I am pro-choice, yet I personally believe that abortion is wrong), this is the simplest way I can explain: If a person is over 21 and has been drinking, I can tell them that they shouldn't continue to drink if I believe them to be drunk already yet, they will continue to do what they want as I am neither their mother nor their keeper. I can't keep them from getting behind the wheel of a car if it is their car. I can try and I can even call the police, but I myself may not be able to stop them if it is their choice. (especially depending on their size)
There are circumstances that may make abortion seem the lesser of 2 evils to some women. I don't know if you have ever seen a 13 year old girl who was kidnapped, beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped and left for dead, but if that same 13 year old finds herself pregnant because of it, she may see abortion as necessary to her mental and physical health. I can't say what I would do in this situation because I haven't been there, my cousin (6 weeks younger than me) wanted to kill herself when this happened to her. Many woman have found themselves in similar circumstances.
I think it was Resh who said " I'd rather be guilty of promoting restrictions on a woman's reproductive rights..." I find this sentence rather interesting. Why just a woman's reproductive rights? We have the technology - perhaps we should have a vast sperm bank with specimens from any man who ever wants to have a child/children with the stipulation that each donor must approve the use of his own sperm. After obtaining and cataloging said sperm, sterilize the male. He could then go on to have sex with any partner he wishes without the risk of unwanted pregnancy. This way pregnancies would be planned and the abortion rate would go down. I admit the legislation, space, and organization would be unimaginably tedious,vast, and time consuming. I suppose once a male reaches puberty he would then have to contribute his sample and "have his nuts cut" , but it would prevent unwanted pregnancies while still allowing for the procreation of the species. ( I am, of course saying this facetiously and not taking it seriously in the least, but is it not an interesting point?)
Well, I will now let you all get on with picking this (and each other) apart. Please play nice or they may put everyone in separate playpens! Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I think that there is a difference between being certain about a decision and refusing to acknowledge that a situation is complex. As a matter of fact, I would more thoroughly trust a decision of my own after I had tried to weigh the nuances and seen the shades of grey. For me, a decision based on refusing to acknowledge doubt would be fragile.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person is over 21 and has been drinking, I can tell them that they shouldn't continue to drink if I believe them to be drunk already yet, they will continue to do what they want as I am neither their mother nor their keeper. I can't keep them from getting behind the wheel of a car if it is their car. I can try and I can even call the police, but I myself may not be able to stop them if it is their choice. (especially depending on their size)
Well, first of all this example does not appear to be very relevant, given that you believe a fetus is a person. The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else. But, if a fetus=person, then you've got one person killing another. Not the same thing.
As for stopping or not stopping a drunk from getting behind the wheel...well, I feel differently about that. I have actually used physical violence* to stop friends of mine in the past who were drunk from getting behind the wheel, and physically restrained an acquaintance from doing the same until a cab arrived.
quote:There are circumstances that may make abortion seem the lesser of 2 evils to some women.
Of course. Using those rare (although not as rare as we'd like, of course) circumstances to justify terminating a person seems a bit strange, though. Especially since we have ways of applying the laws to be a little less blunt than "abortion illegal for everyone".
quote:Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
I did read all of what you said. The statement, "Sex is natural and good," is, unfortunately-if stated alone as you did-not something everyone is going to be able to get on board with. Even outside of religious considerations, just because something is natural does not make it good. I do, however, understand what you're saying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link, JenniK. From the page, "The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years for 2001..."
So even with our hodgepodge of sex ed classes, we came out ok compared to everyone else.
Some info on US abortions:
quote: The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried [82 percent], white [55 percent], and aged <25 years [52 percent]. Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59 percent were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88 percent at <13 weeks.
Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.
Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48 percent of them have had at least one previous abortion.
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
I find the number of repeat customers to be surprising. At that point, why not get your tubes tied and be done with it? I know even that isn't 100%, but it's got to be better than whatever they were doing on their own.
I'm also thinking there's something to those numbers of minority abortions. We made a big deal out of people paying a ton of money to adopt a baby. But how many people want a kid that doesn't look like them? Is there a way to find data that would support or refute inherent prejudice in which women folks are willing to support while waiting to adopt? (I have a hypothesis. If I remember my scientific method, now I need data.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JenniK: To me (fetus = person: yes) Pro-choice. How does this work in your equation? I am just curious.
It doesn't. It's my syllagism, not yours. You get your own!
Rivka, as far as my "moral compass" is concerned, I'm just saying it is a good idea to have a certian direction in mind when faced with a tough decision. You can use whatever criteria you want to determine what that direction is, but to not do so leaves you with a chaotic jumble of thoughts running through your head, and so you will end up making a decision based on ignorance or confusion.
It is apparent that pro-choicers are either using a different setup that me, or are in the same group as many pro-lifers, in that they believe how they do because that is what they were told (more or less). I could be wrong here, but I think my setup has the benefit of being both clearly defined and based on morality. As far as I can see, the pro-choice argument is missing one, the other, or both, depending on who is doing the arguing. This is not to say that many pro-lifers do not explain their viewpoint any better.
Anyway, where abortion is concerned, I've got my moral compass. Other issues have a different compass, but the magnetic attraction is not nearly as strong. It is for this reason that you may get me to adjust my course on many other issues, but you're gonna need a pretty big magnet to get me to change direction here.
[edit] This is where religion comes in, and why it is in fact so important. Rare is the person so smart that he can create logical constructs that dictate how he should proceed on every issue. Religion provides that. [bias alert] Some (Chritianity) do it better than others (Islam). But the compass I do not have any faith in (pun intended) is the one based in atheism. For it relies on the strength of the inteligence of Man. And if we can't even get it right with God's help, how much better can we fare going it alone?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
A "moral compass" can point you in a direction, it isn't a map. Deciding on a position, then ignoring the complexity of an issue is not a good way to make decisions. "Clearly defined" is not necessarily a virtue.
Religion, for me, does not negate my own conscience, "logical constructs", reasoning or moral decision making. God does not ask me to turn in my brain at the door. My religion helps me to form my moral choices; it doesn't replace them or make them for me.
And third, in my experience, people often have made their moral choices and use religion to justify those choices whether there is basis for it or not. Sometimes there is; sometimes there isn't. But I would closely examine my own motivations for deciding what direction my "religious compass" is pointing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh...she has an idea why it works for her. I should know, she is my wife.
I think (although I may be wrong) that she was pointing out that that was something that does exist but doesn't seem to fit into your perspective.
I don't know what point a fetus becomes a person....and neither do you, despite all claims to the contrary. You know where you begin to consider it one, and it is based on your religion (or at least for some people it is). Fine.
But I don't believe the same thing as you, and last I checked that was allowed.
What I do know, beyond any doubt, is that the mother IS alive, and is a person. I also know that pregnancy is dangerous, and having a child is at least in part a medical decision.
Last I checked people were allowed to make those types of decisions themselves.
To me, all the rest of it is speculation. And your right to believe what you want ends at my wife's belly, so to speak.
I personally would never consider abortion, and neither would JenniK, because we believe that the POTENTIAL for life is a gift, and should be cherished. A fetus is the greatest gift of all, because of the potential it represents, regardless of any arbitrary line someone else draws.
But I understand that not everyone feels the way I do, and to me this is every bit as important a decision as religion......and people must find their own way. I can help, or guide, but I do not have the power to force anyone into motherhood.
Nor do I feel anyone else should have that power or right.
So I don't fit into your neat little catigories well, nor will I ever. It is great you are SURE you are right.
posted
Thanks. I forget that not everyone knows that I have typed that answer at least 15 times just in the past 3 years, so it is easy to get frusterated during these conversations.
Resh is conversing now, and while I doubt we will agree I think this type if discourse is much better than calling each other names and telling people what they REALLY feel and think.
While that statement isn't new to me (or a lot of others who have been talking about this stuff for years here at Hatrack ) it may be to him. I remember when I wa so staunchly pro-life that I would have slapped anyone telling me that I might consider being pro-chioce. Well, not slap, but....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B.
This is simply a (much) more polite form of what Resh has been doing. Is it simply the lack of courtesy he has exhibited drawing everyone's ire? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
So I wonder where the ire is for this statement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh's lack of courtesy is actually a large part of my issue with him. However, at least in this thread, it's more the smug certainty that he fully understands and has found wanting everyone else's positions that really bugs me. Despite repeated explanations that his interpretation of other positions is either incomplete, inaccurate, or flat-out wrong.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a fun little abortion story. It makes me giggle.
We went to see a woman in New York who is renown for being able to see the dead (as in spirits). This woman knew a lot of things about us, the most interesting to me was that she knew my friend Sarah had an abortion. Sarah had never told anyone. The woman explained that the baby is plainly still connected to Sarah.
I know a lot of people are skeptical of that kind of thing, seeing the dead and all. It doesn't change the fact that whenever I think of abortions, I picture little spirit fetuses that can't speak or understand the world, tethered to their mothers, blissfully content.
It reminds me of another amusing question: Who says existence is better than non-existence? How would they know?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer Rakeesh - you again did not read the entire statement that I made. This is what I said in my original post:
quote:Originally posted by JenniK So, if children and teens were taught that sex is natural, (which is pretty self evident considering that we do, as a species, exist - philosophers need not add snide remarks [Smile] ) and were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed...
please note the continuation of the sentence after the parenthesis: and were taught all about it openly and honestly they would be better informed...
also,
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh Well, first of all this example does not appear to be very relevant, given that you believe a fetus is a person. The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else. But, if a fetus=person, then you've got one person killing another. Not the same thing.
in many drunk driving fatalities the driver may kill an entire family, yet walk away unharmed so they may be killing more than one person at a time. One person killing multiple people. Not the same, but possibly more harmful.
and -
quote:As for stopping or not stopping a drunk from getting behind the wheel...well, I feel differently about that. I have actually used physical violence* to stop friends of mine in the past who were drunk from getting behind the wheel, and physically restrained an acquaintance from doing the same until a cab arrived.
This may be fine for you, but for a woman facing a belligerent drunk who outweighs her by almost 100 pounds and doesn't care who he hurts, it may not be so easy to resort to physical violence to stop them from getting behind the wheel of a car, especially if there is no one else there to assist.
To answer ScottR - most teens I know ( and I have been an adult advisor for an organization for girls age 11-21 since 1996, so I know a fair few) that have sex education in school are taught about reproduction, i.e. the functions of the body and childbirth, but not about sex itself. Many school boards forbid teachers to explain about intercourse and all it entails or to answer questions about it. It is seen as taboo or forbidden. Then they wonder why there are so many girls turning up pregnant while still in high school (and sometimes Jr. high), after all they have "sex ed." in health class so they should know the consequences of their actions. So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents about that. Kwea explained better than I could how I/ we feel about the subject. If you read his posts here on page 7, my feelings on the subject of "(fetus = baby: yes) Pro-choice" might make a little more sense. As we believe it to be a very important issue we discussed this before we were even engaged to make sure we were both on the same page. We hope to start our own family and pray to be so blessed every day, but not everyone feels the way we do. That is their right.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To answer Rakeesh - you again did not read the entire statement that I made. This is what I said in my original post:
*sigh* I did, I really did. I'm just pointing out that your inclusion of "natural and good" in an "open and honest" discussion of sex is going to be viewed as incomplete or objectionable to some people.
quote:in many drunk driving fatalities the driver may kill an entire family, yet walk away unharmed so they may be killing more than one person at a time. One person killing multiple people. Not the same, but possibly more harmful.
Duly noted.
quote:The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else.
quote:This may be fine for you, but for a woman facing a belligerent drunk who outweighs her by almost 100 pounds and doesn't care who he hurts, it may not be so easy to resort to physical violence to stop them from getting behind the wheel of a car, especially if there is no one else there to assist.
Agreed. The same is not true, however, for federal and state governments, thus rendering that part of your argument pretty inert. Or rather, it does if the reason you said, "I can't stop a person from getting behind the wheel drunk," was just, "I lack the physical means to compel the person not to."
quote:So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
This is a bit different from what you appeared to be saying before. I have no trouble with sex education being open and honest and, in fact, compulsory for high-school students, so long as it's not coupled to sex being "natural and good".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex ed really didn't factor into my decision to have sex. That was mostly hormones and being bombarded with the idea that sex was no big deal. You go to the movies and two people who like each other have sex. You watch tv and everyone who likes each other has sex. You read a teen magazine and they're giving out advice on it. Society tells us that teens have sex, so I didn't worry too much about it.
Though in full disclosure, even if society said good girls didn't act like that, I probably would have anyway. When those hormones kicked in, they kicked in hard.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B.
quote: I wonder where the ire is for this statement.
Dag, there was no ire involved. The simplistic odds I gave were purposefully weighted, in my view, towards this being the logical choice. I’m not saying you‘d be wrong if you were to choose differently - just that you’d probably be driven by other principles than statistical probabilities. The numbers suggested that this was the procedure with the highest chance of success, and I assumed that without other factors intervening, this would be the one most people would choose. If I was arrogant to assume that most people would see this as the most likely option, then - sorry.
I just wanted to know where Resh’s pro-life and anti-playing God limits were.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: To answer ScottR - most teens I know ( and I have been an adult advisor for an organization for girls age 11-21 since 1996, so I know a fair few) that have sex education in school are taught about reproduction, i.e. the functions of the body and childbirth, but not about sex itself. Many school boards forbid teachers to explain about intercourse and all it entails or to answer questions about it. It is seen as taboo or forbidden. Then they wonder why there are so many girls turning up pregnant while still in high school (and sometimes Jr. high), after all they have "sex ed." in health class so they should know the consequences of their actions. So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
JenniK:
This doesn't explain why you iterated that sex should be taught as something 'natural.'
Hate to hang on that point. I agree that in sex education classes are important in reducing teen pregnancy.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:just that you’d probably be driven by other principles than statistical probabilities. The numbers suggested that this was the procedure with the highest chance of success, and I assumed that without other factors intervening, this would be the one most people would choose.
I think it's the equation of "rationally, logically" (from the first post) with being driven by the principle of "statistical probabilities" that I find most troubling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think you are taking one of my statements and placing it into another.
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh I did read all of what you said. The statement, "Sex is natural and good," is, unfortunately-if stated alone as you did-not something everyone is going to be able to get on board with. and
I'm just pointing out that your inclusion of "natural and good" in an "open and honest" discussion of sex is going to be viewed as incomplete or objectionable to some people. and
I did not say anything about sex being "natural and good" in an open and honest discussion about sex. Scott R is the person who put those terms together saying
quote: Also, "natural" doesn't always translate to "good for humanity."
I responded to that statement and yours (which I quoted above), by saying:
quote: Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
To paraphrase my statement: obviously sex is natural and good for humanity because the human race exists. Without it (previous to technological advances such as in-vitro fertilization)the human race would have died out long ago - which I tend to see as being a bad thing for humanity. I said nothing about teaching that sex is natural and good. So your saying that I stated that , and that I stated it alone was incorrect. If you did read all of what I said, then you should have seen it in the context in which it was written.
quote: Originally posted by Scott R JenniK:
Why do you think it's important to teach that sex is natural?
If you are going to teach about sex, and teach all about it openly and honestly, you should teach that it is natural , as it is something that comes as a natural function to the human species. I don't mean to say that you should teach teenagers that "it is natural to have sex, therefore go ahead". I mean to teach them that it is natural and being fully informed about all that sex entails ( physical and emotional consequences included) may help them to make better informed decisions regarding sexual activity. They may decide not to act on impulse simply because their hormones seem to drive them to it, and instead think about what the outcome of their actions may be.
I hope that I explained that better so that you can understand. Sometimes I know what I want to say, but have trouble putting it into words that other people will understand . Kwea calls it my tendency to use "Jenni Speak" , but sometimes I can actually get my meaning across. Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kwea said: I don't know what point a fetus becomes a person....and neither do you, despite all claims to the contrary. You know where you begin to consider it one, and it is based on your religion (or at least for some people it is). Fine.
I don't think I've ever stated where I think life begins. Neither have I said what I think defines personhood (the two are not necessarily the same thing). All I've ever said is that since there is no way of knowing what that point is, I find myself without any choice but to be pro-life.
The part where everyone seems to get upset with me is my insistence that the way I've come to this conclusion is both morally and logically superior to others. I guess that's impolite. The thing that keeps getting repeated (not just here, by the way) is that I must be ignoring something or not understanding something, and statements like "she was pointing out that that was something that does exist but doesn't seem to fit into your perspective" are indicitive of that.
Here I go attributing motivations again, but I believe that when one is completely convinced of his arguments but someone refuses to acquiesce to one's viewpoint, one figures that it is the fault of the resister. Now I am perfectly aware that I may be describing myself. But since I find that I do understand what is being said, and that I am able to process these things within the framework with which I am working, and, as I said before, my convictions are barely shaken, I can provisionally conclude that I am not the one who is being dense. However, because I keep getting responses that seem to stem from an incomplete comprehension of what I say, and because the essence of the difference between the two viewpoints means that either one or the other of us is flat wrong, (and there is no in-between; to believe so just betrays one's incomprehension of the debate, at least the one I'm engaged in), I must also provisionally conclude that those I am debating with are more likely to be speaking without performing much introspective analysis.
In other words, you are not letting me challenge you. You are trying to rebuke me with arguments that worked for you in the past and still work for you, regardless of whether they actually apply. For instance: "You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way, but I disagree and your opinion has no dominion over a woman's choice. And why are you such a jerk? (not a real quote)" The point is being missed here.
Some of you recognize the situation and have tried to formulate appropriate responses. Kudos. But they are generally failures, if you ask me. And since my purpose here (on this thread; don't take my statements here to be universally applied to everything I ever say) is to prove myself right in my own eyes, while applying my own very strict standards of qualification, making friends and converts is not my main concern. I'm judging the merits of the arguments. I am the arbiter of what works and doesn't work for me.
As a nice enough person (it's true! You should meet me in person!), I do actually care about what people think of me. But that's the beauty of internet forums (and this one in particular). I can do away with niceties and really get my hands dirty. I understand that that is not what many are here for. Most of them just stay out of it, and who can blame them? But in the future, I will try to be more persuasive and less abrasive.
P.S. I pass my own test, and I set the requirements for passing very high for myself, because the result of passing the test means that I can hold on to my belief that a woman does not deserve the right to decide that she can have an abortion. This should not be a belief that is arrived at lightly. I mean, I could just say "pro-life" because God commanded it. This is good enough for most, and I'm sure it's good enough for God. But I'm not using that reason. And since I'm not, I'd better be damn sure I'm right. And now I am.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, but it would prevent unwanted pregnancies while still allowing for the procreation of the species. ( I am, of course saying this facetiously and not taking it seriously in the least, but is it not an interesting point?) ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) it may be to him. I remember when I wa so staunchly pro-life that I would have slapped anyone telling me that I might consider being pro-chioce. Well, not slap, but....
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
, but sometimes I can actually get my meaning across. 
