quote:Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
No, it actually won't. The chances are high, but far from inevitable.
quote:Then perhaps she should not have helped to break herself?
And perhaps others shouldn't go skiing, thus leading to them breaking their leg.
---
Have you never been in an abortion thread before? This is pretty darn basic stuff. It's been postulated and refuted more times than I can count.
edit: The difference between these two situations isn't about responsibility for the condition or whether or not it is correctly regarded as a bad thing. It's that you don't think that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion and you do think that the skier should be able to have his broken leg fixed.
I'm okay with that. What I'm taking issue is you trying to present it as something other than it is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another unwarranted assumption, this time about my view. Nothing I've said gives you a basis for thinking that I think it bad to be able to see the arguments the other side is making.
I do believe what they are getting at is not that you think the considering of the alternative arguments is bad, but that you think think the argument itself is not worthy of equal consideration. Then again, to hold strong feelings about something is to often work from the assumption that the opposing argument is less worthy, so take that for what it's worth.
I, for what it is worth, am not going to jump into the fray on this issue any further. I simply thought a clarification outside of the immediate individuals arguing might prove helpful to you.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference between these two situations isn't about responsibility for the condition or whether or not it is correctly regarded as a bad thing. It's that you don't think that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion.
I'm okay with that. What I'm taking issue is you trying to present it as something other than it is.
No, that's what YOU want to make the issue. Please don't try to pretend that this matter has ever been settled in your so-called "refutations." It hasn't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Mr. Squicky, I've never been in an abortion thread before *rolleyes*
--------------
OK, sure, in the abstract world of probabilities, it's possible that a couple behaving as I defined would not get pregnant. Find me one, though, and we can talk about it. One that behaves that way over a period of months or years, let's say.
quote:And perhaps others shouldn't go skiing, thus leading to them breaking their leg.
Again, falls apart because the chance to become pregnant from sex as I outlined it is much greater than the chance of breaking a leg skiing...and anyway, the skiing doesn't entail a bunch of other considerations the way abortion does.
By repairing a broken leg, you're not killing anyway. Also, it is quite possible to be an excellent skier and, for example, have a crappy skier run into you, causing you to break your leg.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do believe what they are getting at is not that you think the considering of the alternative arguments is bad, but that you think think the argument itself is not worthy of equal consideration.
No, it's not what I'm getting at.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it the amount of risk, then, that you are saying is important?
I think it's certainly a factor* in determining whether or not the government should prevent or permit, yes.
If the leg gets infected, you're killing hostile microscopic organism that are threatening the life of the host body. While pregnancy can threaten the life of the host body, it won't kill you with nearly the guarantee that an unchecked infection will. Pretty basic stuff, Mr. Squicky.
*when there are other moral considerations involved, such as potentially killing a human being.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's certainly a factor* in determining whether or not the government should prevent or permit, yes.
So, would you agree that the situation is necessarily different for people who get pregnant while using proper birth control, where the risk is very small?
Alternatively, are you saying we should deny medical care to people who engage in very risky physical behavior, liek those idiots from Jackass? Where is the risk cut-off line?
quote:If the leg gets infected, you're killing hostile microscopic organism that are threatening the life of the host body. While pregnancy can threaten the life of the host body, it won't kill you with nearly the guarantee that an unchecked infection will. Pretty basic stuff, Mr. Squicky.
Right, but you said that you're not killing anything when repairing a broken leg, which is clearly not necessarily true. I mean, I'm just addressing what you said. I can't address things you don't say with anywhere near the same facility.
In addition, infections are not guaranteed fatal if left untreated. In fact, the large majority of them are not. The human immune system handles most of them. Others do not necessarily have the effect of killing the host. Where is the "threatens the host" cut off line?
quote:Right, but you said that you're not killing anything when repairing a broken leg, which is clearly not necessarily true. I mean, I'm just addressing what you said. I can't address things you don't say with anywhere near the same facility.
I didn't mention anything about an infection, Mr. Squicky. Now, this could be the result of my own ignorance. I mean, an infection could actually begin the moment a bone is broken. I don't actually know. I'm assuming it doesn't necessarily, though.
quote:In addition, infections are not guaranteed fatal if left untreated. In fact, the large majority of them are not. The human immune system handles most of them. Others do not necessarily have the effect of killing the host.
Granted, you're right. My mistake about that...but still, which would you say is more dangerous to a human being? Unchecked infection resulting from a broken bone, or pregnancy in a first-world situation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't mention anything about an infection, Mr. Squicky.
You said no killing. That is clearly not true.
In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
---
quote:still, which would you say is more dangerous to a human being? Unchecked infection resulting from a broken bone, or pregnancy in a first-world situation?
That depends on the specfics.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
Now you're just being obtuse, Mr. Squicky. But I'll reply to it, even though it's a trick question. It's OK to kill those cells in the process of surgery because those cells are there involuntarily. The person with the broken leg didn't ask for those cells to be there, didn't do anything to create them except to keep himself alive and breathing. The same cannot be said for nearly all pregnancies, and you know it. That's why it's a trick question.
Also, find me someone who thinks a muscle cell in a leg is or might become a human being.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
you know well that there is a huge difference between killing a few cells in a leg and killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity.
It is a difference, to quote Douglas Adams, which keeps the vast majorrity of the population alive from day to day.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I know that you can understand the difference between considering something (a woman's rights to her body) less important than something else (a fetus's {is that how that is made possessive?} right to live)- even significantly less - and not considering it at all, or considering it so insignificant as to say that he "just can't help but express [his] disdain for such a ridiculous idea."
The latter doesn't seem to be taking it seriously enough.
I'm not asking either of you to change your mind. I'm just hoping that Reshpeckobiggle can see that there are other considerations. That might help make the conversation more productive.
If that isn't possible, I don't see the point in the discussion at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
you know well that there is a huge difference between killing a few cells in a leg and killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity.
You have to be kidding. You are seriously claiming that the genetics involved are the controlling factor here? That if I point out that statisically, there's a chance that you might have a genetically unique bacteria in there, you'd argue that we can't think of killing it? By that logic, killing a walking, talking, thinking clone is fine, because it's just a collection of cells with a non-unique genetic identity.
You really think that that argument makes more sense than "humans are worth more than bacteria, because humans are sentient, and bacteria cleraly are not"?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that you can understand the difference between considering something (a woman's rights to her body) less important than something else (a fetus's {is that how that is made possessive?} right to live)- even significantly less - and not considering it at all, or considering it so insignificant as to say that he "just can't help but express [his] disdain for such a ridiculous idea."
I took his post to mean he was expressing disdain for the constitutional jurisprudence which defined the framework of this discussion. I have a very hard time not expressing my disdain for that - a disdain which has only grown as I've learned more about legal reasoning.
quote:The latter doesn't seem to be taking it seriously enough.
Again, his disdain was directly aimed at a construct of constitutional law, one not worthy of respect. This is very different from disdaining the idea of personal bodily sovereignty entirely.
Look, I know there are other considerations. But recognizing that does not preclude one from having analyzed those considerations and come to the well-considered conclusion that the weight of the interests at stake is overwhelmingly on one side.
I can agree that personal bodily sovereignty is very important and STILL think that legal abortion is not a close question on the merits, even as I recognize to some that it is a close question.
Too much of the criticism aimed at Resh is blurring the concepts of "understanding others' views" and "having a firm opinion that an issue is not a morally close one."
******* (not addressing Kate in the remainder of this post *******
By the way, I'd like to see some of the politeness police taking a swipe at some of the prochoice rudeness going on in this thread. Several people who essentially agree with Resh's policy viewpoint on this issue have called him on his rudeness and attempted to demonstrate to him a better way to discuss the issue. Let's see some going the other way, please.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: 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.
I don't know if Kate may have had this quote, from the bottom of p. 7, in mind when she made her original post, but I think that's a pretty clear indication that Resh's disdain isn't only for the constitutional jurisprudence which defined the framework of this discussion.
Just to be clear, I am not entering the fray here regarding the main topic. I don't honestly know what I think about abortion right now, except that I definitely don't think it should be unrestricted, and that I'm pretty sure I don't think it should be banned outright. I'm somewhere in the middle now, but still pondering. However, I do think, in the specific case of Resh, that the quote above presents a view that troubles me greatly.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I don't have any problem with your position. Weighing the scales and deciding that they come down overwhelmingly on the side of preserving the life of a potential person is fine. The scale tips that way for me, too (though not so overwhelmingly). I was getting the impression from Reshpeckobiggle that he didn't think there was anything at all on the other side of the scale. I hoped that pointing out that there was might help him to at least see that other people could weigh the scales differently without being any of the things he was calling them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record...Dag has always managed in these abortion debates to maintain his beliefs while understanding the other views presented.
He is one of the few people I would discuss this stuff with face to face, because even though we disagree on the final conclusion, I know he gets that there are other viewpoints. We probably wouldn't change each others mind, be neither of us would be calling the other name at the end of the conversation. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: You have to be kidding. You are seriously claiming that the genetics involved are the controlling factor here?
You are a newb here, so I'll give you just this once and step you through what was said.
Behold your reading comprehension lesson:
Squicky was comparing killing leg muscle cells-- human ones presumably-- to killing an entire fetus. I pointed out that the difference was that killing a few leg cells leaves a functioning, living human individual. Killing a fetus does not... a human fetus is a genetically human individual separate from the mother.
The reason genetics are important here is that they unquestionably identify the fetus as human cells which are not part of the mother's body. With the "more leg cells are being killed" argument, Squicky is obviously angling for an allusion to the "part of the mother's body" line of thought, if not directly about to proceed upon that argument path, and I cut him short on it as he should know better, having been through this debate not a few times here.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, You are very wrong about what I am doing and I find your condescension both unwarranted and unproductive. I would ask that you try to conduct yourself with respect towards the other people in this discussion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I don't think that proves your point, although I agree with you about his opinions.
His motivation for that seems to be that if abortion IS murder (a premise I don't agree with) then NO ONE has that right. It only applies to women because they carry the child.
Of course the way he phrased it was more than a little hostile, but considering the topic that is to be expected.
quote:Orignally posted by Jim-Me, You are a newb here, so I'll give you just this once and step you through what was said.
Everyone has to have a first post, and I read what was actually written.
quote: I pointed out that the difference was that killing a few leg cells leaves a functioning, living human individual.
Please. The quote was “killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity”. I refuse to believe that the poster is so ignorant of science as to not know how to use the word ”organism” where appropriate. The poster simply chose not to. I respond to what the poster chosed to write.
quote: The reason genetics are important here is that they unquestionably identify the fetus as human cells which are not part of the mother's body.
A woman carrying her own clone would have a whole lot of fetal cells which on the DNA level would be indistinguishable from her own. So if you are actually going by the argument that DNA unquestionably tells you whether or not its okay to kill those cells (namely, that it’s okay as long as an organism with that DNA still lives), you have to conclude that your unquestionable test says its fine.
Or, you can make the reasonable argument that a clone is a separate organism from the woman bearing here, no matter what their DNA is. But that's not what the post said. It said “genetic identity”.
A woman with a tumor in her uterus has cells which have different DNA in them. Not technically of the same "genetic identity".
You can argue that those tumor cells aren’t independent organisms, and that most importantly, they are endangering the life of a sentient organism. But if “genetic identity” is “unquestionable”, then that precludes those from being factors.
Of course, some lines of tumor cells have actually acquired the ability to grow “wild”. It’s been seen in human HeLa cell lines. So these are technically human organisms. You can tell from their genetics.
And these are just all the weird things I could come up with in 5 minutes of thinking. Surely other people on this board could think of things I missed, or science will discover other oddities of biology.
Are you still convinced that genetics will give you the simple “unquestionable” answers you want?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
WikiAnswers gives some odds on getting pregnant.
quote: Now, this gives the average woman about a three day window period every month for pregnancy to occur. From this alone, the odds of getting pregnant from a one-time sexual encounter are about 11%.
quote: Now, it's estimated that pregnancy only occurs (according to medical websites) about 1/4 to 1/2 of the time that sperm and the egg are present together, due to a variety of reasons. This lowers the odds of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter to about 3-5%.
quote: To put these odds in perspective, 85% of all couples who have unprotected sex will become pregnant within the first year.
So while one act of sex might not get you knocked up, making a habit of it probably will.
On the other hand, a [url= http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/issw%2094'/HISTORY%20OF%20PROFESSIONAL%20SKI%20PATROLLING%20IN%20THE%20WESTERN%20UNITED%20STATES.htm]History of the Ski Patrol[/url] puts accidents at a smaller number.
quote: Total number of accidents this season 139 Serious accidents 69 Trivial accidents 70 % of accidents to attendance 1%
If total accidents are 1%, broken legs must be <1%.
quote: During the season there were 162 accidents, 51 of which were fractures, dislocations or other serious wounds. The accident rate was .87% It was felt the greatest number of accidents were caused by being out of control.
Just to put some numbers to the pregnancy vs. broken leg debate. You probably won't break your leg skiing, even if you do it regualarly. You probably will get pregnant if you do it regualarly.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Within the context of the discussion, Jim-me's statement is precisely correct.
But you do have to look at the whole context and not get strung out on semantics.
Squicky:
If you WEREN'T about to compare killing a fetus to killing a few leg muscle cells...what were you doing? You didn't respond in any productive way to Jim-me that authoritatively refutes his assumption about the direction of your posts...and honestly, that's where *I* believed you were trying to take the discussion, too.
So, please-- elaborate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a guy addresses his first post ever to me and says "you've got to be kidding" and proceeds to go on a tear about a woman carrying her own clone as if that's something *everyone* should consider first thing in a debate on abortion (presumably because of the high numbers of women who go through the expense and years of research to develop and then impregnate themselves with their own clone and then decide... "nah, I guess I should abort") then yes, I'm going to be condescending. I don't have much patience for obtuse people these days, whether deliberate or not.
Which brings us back to your point... as Scott said, if you weren't trying to draw an equation between the leg cells killed in knee surgery to the fetal cells killed in abortion, then why did you compare the two?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: WikiAnswers gives some odds on getting pregnant.
quote: Now, this gives the average woman about a three day window period every month for pregnancy to occur. From this alone, the odds of getting pregnant from a one-time sexual encounter are about 11%.
quote: Now, it's estimated that pregnancy only occurs (according to medical websites) about 1/4 to 1/2 of the time that sperm and the egg are present together, due to a variety of reasons. This lowers the odds of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter to about 3-5%.
quote: To put these odds in perspective, 85% of all couples who have unprotected sex will become pregnant within the first year.
So while one act of sex might not get you knocked up, making a habit of it probably will.
On the other hand, a History of the Ski Patrol[/url] puts accidents at a smaller number.
quote: Total number of accidents this season 139 Serious accidents 69 Trivial accidents 70 % of accidents to attendance 1%
If total accidents are 1%, broken legs must be <1%.
quote: During the season there were 162 accidents, 51 of which were fractures, dislocations or other serious wounds. The accident rate was .87% It was felt the greatest number of accidents were caused by being out of control.
Just to put some numbers to the pregnancy vs. broken leg debate. You probably won't break your leg skiing, even if you do it regualarly. You probably will get pregnant if you do it regualarly.
That 85% is couples who use no form of birth control.
posted
Kwea, upon consideration, I guess you're right. I was reading a motivation into his choice of phrasing that may not be there (though I'm not certain it isn't).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Please, pH and AvidReader, use tinyURL!
quote:That 85% is couples who use no form of birth control.
This whole tangent of the conversation has been about unprotected sex.
I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex. There was a lot about SEX. There was a lot of talk about broken legs and bacteria. I don't think anyone said anything about not using protection. Also, most people who ski don't just grab their equipment and head right up to the double black diamond Widowmaker slope, either (in other words, most people do have some kind of preparation before skiing).
(I don't think that broken leg/abortion is a good comparison - not because of what I'm posting. Just sayin'.)
quote:I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex.
Rakeesh:
quote:Granted re: skiing on broken legs. But it sort of falls apart on careful examination. First of all, it's far from inevitable or even likely that if you ski, you'll break a leg. There are lots of skiers out there who regularly play at their sport, with no broken limbs. In the comparison, the same cannot be said of sex. Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
Squicky:
quote:Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
Rakeesh:
quote:Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
Do you disagree? I think it's pretty obvious that those conditions are what I was getting at, but I'll grant the possibility of misinterpretations.
quote:No, it actually won't. The chances are high, but far from inevitable.
This was the context in which AR gave his post on odds of getting pregnant.
This is, of course, a separate issue from whether the broken leg and abortion comparison is a good one. I don't think it is, and the point which it was brought up to make isn't a good one, either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Separate from the abortion debate, aren't the arguments regarding sex simply showing clearly why sex ed that explains it fully and encourages birth control is a good thing? Aren't the choices are "don't do it because there are risks" and "there are risks, but if you're going to do it, please protect yourself for your sake and others" regarding sex ed?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a ludicrous analogy because, first of all, you're throwing out proper use of contraceptives and infertility. You may as well make the skier come down blindfolded, and without poles, as well. I'm sure we can agree that that would greatly increase the amount of skiing injuries, right? Contraceptives are readily available, and they're not a secret. To pretend like they don't exist means you're starting out the analogy in a parallel universe. Infertility isn't exactly a rare occurance anymore, and it's hardly statistically insignificant enough that you can just brush it aside.
I mean people can float off into space, too. Y'know, disregarding gravity.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's a ludicrous analogy because it equates a serious, life threatening injury to a normal bodily function.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you drew an analogy between refusal to allow abortion and refusal to allow leg-setting after ski accidents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I did (edit: sort of - actually it is less an analogy and more a comparison of the reasoning). I don't really have the time to continue it right now, but I'll address it tonight, most likely.
---
I'm wondering, Dag, why did you omit these statements when you were summing up things people said about sex when you classified it as being all about unprotected sex?
quote:Also, removing properly used birth control is kind of a big thing, don't you think? I mean, if we look at skiers who ski recklessly and don't use any protective equipment, I'd imagine that the incidence of broken legs per capita would increase quite a bit.
quote:So, would you agree that the situation is necessarily different for people who get pregnant while using proper birth control, where the risk is very small?
They seem pretty relevant to the claim that you were making.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
...which was what prompted my own confusion when you took offense at Jim-me's statement that
quote:With the "more leg cells are being killed" argument, Squicky is obviously angling for an allusion to the "part of the mother's body" line of thought, if not directly about to proceed upon that argument path, and I cut him short on it as he should know better, having been through this debate not a few times here.
Can you explain how Jim-me and I were wrong to think that you were going in this direction?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm wondering, Dag, why did you omit these statements when you were summing up things people said about sex when you classified it as being all about unprotected sex?
As far as the first quotation goes, that wasn't there when Rakeesh responded. Since my whole post was about state of mind as far as what is being discussed, it's absolutely irrelevant. It didn't affect Rakeesh's immediate reply.
The larger issue, of course, is that they aren't relevant to the point I was making, which was to respond to "I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex."
Showing that there were indeed discussions about unprotected sex is absolutely, 100% relevant to whether or not there were any such discussions. There was an ongoing argument about the inevitability of pregnancy from ongoing unprotected sex between fertile partners.
Showing that there other discussions happening as well is not relevant in any way, shape, or form to the point I was making. It was relevant to other points that were being discussed in parallel.
Which is why I said, "This is, of course, a separate issue from whether the broken leg and abortion comparison is a good one."
That would seem pretty relevant to anyone trying to understand the claim I was making.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Megan. What motivation were you reading into my post? Because I'll be happy to verify whether it was there or not.
quote:Dagonee:Several people who essentially agree with Resh's policy viewpoint on this issue have called him on his rudeness and attempted to demonstrate to him a better way to discuss the issue
I appreciate it Dag. You and Rakeesh are doing a very good job of demonstarting that. It was in another thread that xaposert was saying that I shouldn't have to change my writing style, because no one else does. I thought he made a good point, but then, there is something to be gained for the effort, I'm sure.
Then again, my purpose isn't to make friends or converts (thought those are very nice things.) I justwanted to test my beliefs against the most withering assaults possible. I don't know if that has happened, but I did my best to promote the debate.
kmboots, I'll help you out with your ruminations, because although this can be gathered from the whole of my posts on this thread, it will probably help if I just lay it out: I understand the other factors involved, including a womans sovereignity and the intrusion that an unwanted pregnacy can be. However, for all intents and purposes, these are thins that do not factor into my reasoning. They factor into my sympathy for a woman who has been placed in an impossible situation, but they don't affect my decision to value the life of the unborn as much as I would any other person. That value does not simply outweigh the value of the woman's sovereignity or convenience (a mild term for what it actually can describe, I know). Those values have next to nothing to do with each other.
Also, my disain was in fact directed at the constutionality of the Roe vs Wade decision, and any other arguments made in defense of the legality of unfettered abortion. There is no legal basis whatsoever. But I do not have disdain for the values espoused by pro-choicers as their reasons for being such.
In turn, I do have disdain for pro-choicers infusion of those values with more weight than the value of the personhood (and resultant rights and sovereignity) that a fetus just might possibly possess.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: Specifically, your wording in the post I quoted ("my belief that a woman does not deserve the right to decide that she can have an abortion") suggested to me a motivation that was more anti-woman than pro-fetus. Kwea suggested the alternate interpretation (that NO ONE deserves that right). I find your specific wording in that post to be troubling because in my opinion, IF (and I understand you don't grant this "if") anyone has the right to make that decision, it should most certainly be the woman carrying the fetus. I honestly couldn't figure out why you used the word "deserved;" it seemed very paternalistic to me. If you had phrased it "my belief that no one [or "no woman," even] has the right to decide that to have an abortion," I don't think I would have quibbled with you.
I realize that misogynistic tendencies are sometimes applied unfairly, to pro-life positions. I want to avoid attributing that sentiment to anyone undeservedly. I did find your wording troubling, though, and am interested to hear whether you see what I mean.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice I was the one who...well, not defended you there, but clarified an alternative meaning, I guess.
I am listening, Resh, but I don't find your arguments compelling at all.
BtW, most of HAVE changed our posting styles based on interactions here at Hatrack. You are free to refuse to, of course, but Xap really isn't one to talk.
I haven't seen him convince anyone of anything since he started the whole " I know what you MEAN to say" style of argument....about 2 years ago, IIRC.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly defines the pro-choice, pro-life sides? Cause I am not sure which side I am actually on. I don't believe life begins at conception, so I am good with contraceptives and stem cell research and all that (and pretty strongly in favor of them). I don't have an exact moment where life begins, but I think that first breath is way, way too late. I would happily vote for a law that outlawed abortions after the first trimester, except for medical necessity (if a woman at week 14 found out she had cancer and could abort and do chemo to save her life, my ideal law wouldn't affect that choice). I also think in a perfect world, there would be no abortions.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself mostly pro-life, but I have a lot of exceptions and such. I don't think life begins at conception, I would say life begins once the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb.
I'm okay with exceptions for the life of the mother, and rape, and maybe incest, but generally I'd think that'd fall under some sort of rape. I'm not sure on that last one. I think the focus should be on sex education and contraceptives in the early teen years so teens know what all the risks are and what all their options are. Give them all the information.
I think abortions should be few and far between, and while I generally am against them, I am hesitant to legislate control over a woman's body. I suppose if I had to, I'd outlaw anything after the first trimester, with the exception of the health of the mother. And I'd to see a discussion on the rights of the father over unborn children.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
