quote:If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines.
Without making any comment on what either you or Katarina have said in this thread, that isn't true. If somebody doesn't come out and answer a question to your satisfaction, you can choose to read between the lines, or you can choose to acknowledge that you don't know their mind on that exact matter. I think the second option is the better of the two.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the point, then, of responding to a suggestion that we improve birth control with the "all people have to do is abstain if they don't want to get pregnant" argument?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Try as I might, I can't read minds. If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines. If you're unclear in your position, it's due to your own unwillingness to take a stand.
I gave a perfectly clear stance: due to my own experiences, my feeling is that I would not wish to legally hamper the protesters in any way, because doing so would create strictures on free speech that I find intolerable.
I freely admit that if I were to have different experiences or see additional evidence, this may be modified.
Your opinion does not count as additional evidence.
As for the question of if they "should" protest in that manner (which is very different from whether or not they ought to be prevented from protesting in that manner), I am reluctant to do public moralizing about other people's priorities. That you do not share that reluctance is not my responsibility.
If you insist, I'll say that in the above-described situation, everyone in and outside the clinic comes off looking like crap.
In general, it seems that you wish to debate what should be moral and I wish to discuss what should be legal. Since we are both Americans (I think), there is probably enough common ground there for a conversation on legal matters to be possible.
And, if you must know, I don't wish to discuss what should be moral. I'm not interested in the views on morality of someone who is okay with abortion.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines.
Without making any comment on what either you or Katarina have said in this thread, that isn't true. If somebody doesn't come out and answer a question to your satisfaction, you can choose to read between the lines, or you can choose to acknowledge that you don't know their mind on that exact matter. I think the second option is the better of the two.
True enough.
I could also say, "Some people might say those protesters are human scum and deserve a beating? I'm not going to comment, although I know how I feel about it, but some people might say that."
I didn't actually say anything about my feelings on the matter, but if I did say this, I can see how it might be taken a certain way.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cow -- you said the best you can do is read between the lines. I disagree. I think that declining to read between the lines would be better.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the point, then, of responding to a suggestion that we improve birth control with the "all people have to do is abstain if they don't want to get pregnant" argument?
Because the idea of improving birth control was put forth as a "solution" to the abortion problem. The existence of such control now suggests that such control will not "solve" the abortion problem.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Then there is that "should." I don't believe in "shoulds" and public moralizing in general
OK, so "shoulds" are bad.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Actually, if there were organizations in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
That certainly seems like something that should stop.
Except when you feel like they aren't.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: And, if you must know, I don't wish to discuss what should be moral. I'm not interested in the views on morality of someone who is okay with abortion.
You don't wish to discuss morality, except to make the offhanded implication that my views are immoral.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I understand. By "such control" do you mean abstinance?
Yes.
Rejecting the idea that more effective birth control would "solve" the abortion problem does not mean one rejects the idea of more effective birth control.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population.
The eleven-year-olds who are pregnant most likely as a result of rape? That's not a "start" to anything. Don't get your hopes up. The fully-cognizant adults who use abortion as birth control aren't even in the same galaxy.
Actually they are. Not only are they in the same galaxy, they're in the same nation with all the real world ambiguities that apply.
Whether it is 1% of the population or just raped 11-year olds, you're missing the key thrust of my post. Once you move beyond a 100% blanket ban on abortion to allowing loop holes, you move from a system that at least is marginally objective to a system that requires human judgement.
So, if we agree that the raped 11 year old can get an abortion, what about the 12 year old, or 13 year old? Is there a maximum? What if its a woman who really was not raped but still wishes an abortion and claims she was raped? What if the woman was actually raped and cannot prove that the pregnancy was the result of a rape?
A very common situation now, what if the woman initially refused to believe that she was raped and is in denial or too ashamed to act rationally to get a morning after pill or rape kit?
If you were these woman, who would you delegate to, the responsibility of determining whether you could or could not have an abortion, whether or not you were really raped? Who would you trust with that job?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you want do that in your anti-abortion work, be my guest, but please don't tell me where my priorities should be.
Priorities is overstating it. I'd deem it an awareness of the consequences of one's own proposals. Granted, one *can* propose things without caring what the consequences are, but thats not particularly persuasive or more importantly, effective.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I understand. By "such control" do you mean abstinance?
Yes.
Rejecting the idea that more effective birth control would "solve" the abortion problem does not mean one rejects the idea of more effective birth control.
If not solve, certainly ease. If, for example, a woman had to go to the effort to be fertile that she now does to counter that. Go to her doctor, buy a prescription. Or a man had to be sure that he used whatever the reverse of a condom would be.
These are extreme examples, but what if it were possible to have to decide to get pregnant instead of the other way around?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Thats the trick,... which ones indeed.
None. I didn't want to put words in your mouth or assume you meant anthing in particular. I do not believe there are any universal morals.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Telling people not to have sex isn't very effective, that's true.
Choosing not to have sex is extremely effective.
Sex isn't something people shouldn't have. It's fun!
Any society wherein not having sex is the only surefire way to not have a baby isn't as good as one with perfect medical birth control, so we should try to improve our birth control.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What is the point, then, of responding to a suggestion that we improve birth control with the "all people have to do is abstain if they don't want to get pregnant" argument?
Because the idea of improving birth control was put forth as a "solution" to the abortion problem. The existence of such control now suggests that such control will not "solve" the abortion problem.
What the heck? I said we should improve birth control so that we can have our cake and eat it too. I wasn't saying abstinence doesn't work to prevent pregnancy.
Abstinence is not a good solution to unwanted pregnancy for reasons other than its effectiveness. (Most people don't want to go without having sex to ensure that they won't have a baby) Better birth control would be a better solution. The quality of birth control kmb describes would be a very good defense against unwanted pregnancy.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I gave a perfectly clear stance: due to my own experiences, my feeling is that I would not wish to legally hamper the protesters in any way, because doing so would create strictures on free speech that I find intolerable.
I freely admit that if I were to have different experiences or see additional evidence, this may be modified.
Okay, so how would your stance be modified if your experiences included PSI's stated situation?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
You really should for two reasons: A) If you do not, I suspect that anyone of a low income living within driving/busing distance of Canada would be able to avoid the ban. Anyone of a moderate income or higher would be able to avoid the ban outright. If I were to guess, that would leave maybe 1/5th or less of the population that could be successfully stopped from having an abortion.
The ban would be even more of a farce than prohibition with plenty of consequences.
B) If abortion is really "murder", you should really be concerned regardless of where it happens. Additionally, I would also bet that even if you did not (as evidence from the example of same-sex marriage) that other advocates *would* try to take into account this and take measures. It is worth considering what these measures would end up looking like and whether they would be worse than the problem at hand.
* by "the ban", this is shorthand for if anti-abortion advocates for their way and implemented a simple blanket "no abortion access in the US" policy
Oh, it's worse than you think. My sights are set a good deal lower than "no abortion in the US". I just want individual states to have the right, if they so wish, to ban abortion within their own borders.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI: My personal major issue is that I can't get home without passing them, and there's no way to avoid my children seeing this.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I think they are entirely avoidable unless someone is actually going to the abortion clinic
You're not really taking her description into account because you don't think the premise of her account is true.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we went to the Hill Cumorah pageant, there was no way for me to shield my kids' ears from the lies the protesters were shouting by bullhorn, into the parking lot.
Nor was there much chance of me stopping my eight-year-old and six-year-old from reading the signs denigrating our beliefs.
EVEN SO-- and even though the protesters' complaints were false, graphic, and personally directed (yes, they did shout at particular people walking across the lot)-- I would not do anything legal to stop, quell or frustrate their efforts to speak their minds.
We did talk with the kids beforehand about what they'd see outside the pageant; and our kids know who to ask for answers about our religion.
Kids' interactions with objectionable (but protected) speech on public display is best handled by parents talking with kids, and informing them about what the heck is going on before the actual encounter.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kids' interactions with objectionable (but protected) speech on public display is best handled by parents talking with kids, and informing them about what the heck is going on before the actual encounter.
Unless you can't anticipate the encounter and/or you think the subject isn't appropriate for your children to discuss. For example, if I had young children I wouldn't want people protesting premarital sex to be standing right outside of my house with graphic pictures of different STDs.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, it's worse than you think. My sights are set a good deal lower than "no abortion in the US". I just want individual states to have the right, if they so wish, to ban abortion within their own borders.
Beyond having the right, do you support individual states actually instituting these bans? Do you believe that such bans would be effective?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a big fan of protecting speech, but I'm not sure that should include huge, graphic images. I think protesters should be allowed to say basically what they want (excluding inciting violence or speaking slander), but there can exist very free speech without the necessity for disturbing images which will be forever burned into my mind.
You should be able to speak your mind, but you should not be able to set up a rock concert speaker system outside my house and speak your mind at deafening volume at 3am.
I would say similarly, you should indeed be allowed to stand outside an abortion clinic and say that abortion is murder, anyone who believes in abortion for any reason whatsoever is amoral and will burn forever in the fiery hell of Satan's bum, etc.
I don't think that right should infringe on other people's right to avoid listening to you if they choose not to. It should also not include the right to display huge pictures of disturbing violence on a public street. The people driving down that street should have the right not to see a picture of a dismembered fetus without having to close their eyes and veer onto the sidewalk.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: if I had young children I wouldn't want people protesting premarital sex to be standing right outside of my house with graphic pictures of different STDs.
quote:I would advocate making abortion illegal in my state, yes.
Do you believe that making abortion illegal in your state is an effective means of eliminating abortions by the citizens of your state? Based on your previous comments, it sounds to me like you're less concerned with actually preventing abortions than in making sure they are illegal. Am I misunderstanding you?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No, I do not mean that.
So by illegal would you make it illegal for individuals to request an abortion be done and instead limit it solely to the doctors discretion in life or death situations?
What about if a psychiatrist says that an abortion is neccesary to avoid serious mental trauma in the case of rape or incest?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to understand them but you are giving very short answers with very little information. If you don't want to talk about it, just say so.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Why the third degree on my opinions about abortion, folks?
I'm actually not familiar with that phrase
I'm just trying to flesh them out, I understand if for whatever reason you'd rather not spell them out. I'm just curious, I was surprised that it sounded like you were saying outright, ban all abortions in your state, that's all. I was not planning on challenging your opinions, just getting a feel for them.*
What can I say, I like the cut of your jib much of the time Porter.
*But as is common in a forum I reserve the right to change my mind on this matter Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all have views on abortion, and not many people can find the middle of the road on this. This is why it has been used a filler campaign subject for many years. I do not think we will ever agree about it enough to get rid of protesters on either side.
Personally I do not agree with abortion but I under the medical needs for it. I do not think it should be used as a form of birth control. Those that are not willing to suffer or enjoy the consequences of their actions should not engage in those actions. Sex can and often results in the transmission of STD's or the conception of a child.
I think it is our job as parents and society to explain this to our children by talking openly about subjects and not trying to hide it behind fear and rethoric.
Sex is not bad. Sex can be a beautiful enjoyable experience even if it is with a sad sack like myself. It can be a great act of union and a physical representation of your feelings. Like all things that are good in life, you have to exhibit control over those desires less they exhibit control over you.
If our children and those ignorant adults are educated properly about sex, perhaps the need for abortions would and could be limited to medical purposes only. The argument needs to be made effective though with out using religion as a basis for the argument.
The reason for this is in our nation many people follow a variety of religions and though some have similar ideas not all are the same. Some people will reject sound advice, simply because you slipped in a religious note that may or may not be from their faith. They could and would reject your sound advice simply because they might feel it is not inline with their faith.
Thats just my two cents though.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't noticed ANYONE in this thread citing their faith as for their rejection of abortion.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't noticed ANYONE in this thread citing their faith as for their rejection of abortion.
I didn't notice anyone citing any reason for rejecting abortion - just that they rejected it. The suggestion that anti-abortion folk develop a rigorous secular argument for their position is a good idea.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay then, other then your faith why should a person reject abortion. Leave doctrine and faith based morals out of the discussion. With out saying its just wrong tell me why its wrong. I have my own arguments for it, and I am not really pro choice. I woudl just like to hear what and other people have to say.
I woudl ask to hear the pro choice side of it, but since the law currently favors them its not really required by them.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd tell you my reasoning, Hookt, but I value my sanity too much to get involved with this lot on this subject.
Ahh, here I go...
If abortion is murder, then it should be illegal, no exceptions. If we cannot answer the question of whether abortion is murder, then we must err on the side of caution. If you disagree with my reasoning, then we should at least be allowed to vote on the matter. But for some reason, we continue killing babies, and we don't get to vote on the matter. What's going on here?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, I thought this wasn't going to be your average abortion thread. But it sure appears indistinguishable from all the other abortion threads (maybe a little less name calling; but I guess I ruined that by effectively calling the pro-choicers "murderers.")
(I didn't actually do that, but that is how som
Now I'm gonna go find an evolution thread and cement my future temporary loss of sanity.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble is by current law, abortion is not murder (devils advocate here). It is a moral belief that makes it murder. By the law life does not start until the child leaves the womb, so can you legally prove that life starts at an another point. Is it conception?
On this note the law is hypocritical though. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child and they die, the driver faces two counts of murder in most states.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But I'm asking if abortion is murder in an objective sense, and not according to subjective human laws.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If abortion is murder, then it should be illegal, no exceptions.
No argument there.
quote:If we cannot answer the question of whether abortion is murder, then we must err on the side of caution.
And this is where we get stuck, I think, on religion. I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
I also believe that any sort of just god(s) would take care of any potential lost souls either by giving them another shot in the next available body, or giving them an express ticket to their eternal reward. But that's a religious argument...
quote:If you disagree with my reasoning, then we should at least be allowed to vote on the matter. But for some reason, we continue killing babies, and we don't get to vote on the matter. What's going on here?
Because our system of government protects the minority from the "tyranny of the majority" by not allowing a direct vote on all issues. If a direct vote by the citizens in each state were the way we decided these sort of things, slavery could have continued for many decades.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
