How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


75 posted 12-26-2001 09:10 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth


"PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry.


- Your disclaimer, placed at the end of your "cutting" does no service to me or yourself and I found it to be quite superficial.

"Why should non-religous people care about what other people do?  Perhaps the question is, should people attempt to impose their morality on others? Or perhaps, should people attempt to impose their laws on others?"


- Are these rhetorical type questions or do you really want an answer to each one?


"Hypocrisy is not limited to the religous, no matter what the religion."


- I never said otherwise.

"As the quote goes, there is nothing wrong with religion, it's just those practice it; or going to church makes you no more a Christian than going to a garage makes you a mechanic."


- I disagree...going to a garage could also  make one a very bad mechanic.

"I realize this is getting somewhat from the point, but why is it an accepted fact that your position on abortion is dependent on your views on religion?"


- That is too easy to answer. Because it is, i repeat, it is the religious right wingers of this country who have made it a political issue. Now, don't infer, that I either agree or disagree with those right-wingers. I am merely stating a fact.

"It is easy to pigeonhole the pro-life by characterizing them as religous fanatics as easily as it is to pigeonhole the pro-choice as atheistic murderers."


- You are taking this issue into other areas of different issues. Once again, without inference, all I am saying is that the abortion isssue is an issue only because of the pro-life religious people who make it an issue. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I am merely stating a fact.

"Perhaps we should not focus on hypocrisy, but human beings attempting to deal with a issue in which there is no discernible solution within our meager capabilities."


- But there is a discernable solution...worry about your own self and family and don't interfere between the woman and her doctor...very simple, to me, whether I agree with abortion, which at least two of you have already inferred, (and I never said, nor do you know if "I" am a  pro-lifer or not), or not.

"Drawing a line in the sand is not the answer for either side, although unfortunately, that seems to be the inevitable solution to a majority of our problems..."


- You lost me here, honestly.

"Has there been hypocrisy on both sides of the abortion issue?"


- Rhetorical? You tell me and expound on your answer with logical and sound reasoning.

"Is religion the only determinate in arriving at your position?"


- What position is that? That I believe that abortion is an issue due to religion - based upon - Yes.

"Is abortion a consequence of our human weaknesses, both male and female? What is the answer?"


- Again, the question you pose sounds rhetorical, but I will say this...you need to learn to separate issues. I am not talking, nor have I talked about "human weaknesses" with regards to the "consequences" of abortion.  Read my previous replies to understand. I made a comment about the fact as to why abortion is an "issue." That was all I did. I never said that I agreed or disagreed. I did say that I believe it to be hypoctrical, and that I know to be so - when viewing religion as its leaders throughout their history.

Don't take it personal.  

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-26-2001 09:57 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


76 posted 12-26-2001 11:46 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Opeth

"Why is abortion a political issue?  

It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient."

Abortion is political for many more reasons than just the religious aspect. The Christian viewpoint is the strongest because most people in America are Christians. The thing is, I think that most pro-lifers think abortion is wrong for more than just religious reasons, it's just that their faith in God is their strongest driving point- they believe in that more strongly than the other pro-life arguments, so that's their soap-box. Unfortunately, a lot of us have your reaction to that.

Now, in the beginning of this thread, I pointed out to Local Rebel that focusing on just the scientific and religious aspects isn't enough, and that's true. His thread, which originally was to compare these two focal points of the issue, has mushroomed into something much bigger.

What about feminism? This, I think, definitely has a stronger pull than anything else- in this debate and in politics- it's the reason we have legal abortions in the first place- the woman's freedom of choice. You seem to fully support that. On the other hand, there is a very strong feminist pro-life viewpoint that is purely political, and I really don't see how we can escape the politics of this situation.

A lot of women believe that abortion is actually supported (consciously or unconsciously) because of society's bias against mothers. A lot of career women face great discrimination when they become pregnant- employers want employees who can be fully devoted to their careers- they don't want their performance to be compromised. At my high school, there used to be a rule that girls on the cheerleading squad would be kicked off and not allowed back if they had a baby... what's the unspoked alternative there? Nobody said anything about pregnancy, just the baby. It's not a morality thing, it's a devotion to the squad thing. Mothers, especially young single mothers, are highly discriminated against. A very strongly Christian girl I know had to give a presentation about why she thinks abortion is wrong- she concluded by saying that although she doesn't believe in premarital sex, if she was raped, she would probably have an abortion because she couldn't face the mar to her reputation- nobody would ask if she'd gotten raped, but assume that she is promiscuous. What about the girl earlier in this thread who killed herself because she was scared of the consequences of her pregnancy?

Pro-life feminists think that abortions allow these prejudices to exist. Without abortion, women would either have to prevent themselves from getting pregnant or fight for their rights not only as women, but as mothers. It's a nice way to look at things, but I don't think it's very likely to happen. We're not all hard-headed enough to shoulder that kind of responsibility, and that's not something a few civil rights speakers can acheive. It would take a nation-wide effort from women everywhere, and there are too many conditionals to foster that kind of resolve.

You did kind of present things in a very cut and dry manner... you did seem to try to draw a line in the sand. This topic is obviously not very cut and dry, because look at the response it has generated. Maybe it seems to you that this would ideally be kept a private matter, untouched by the opinions of others- but it is the termination of life. Look at all topics covered by that subject- mercy killing, capital punishment, suicide, murder in self-defense, war- and look at all the controversy those topics also generate. Nothing so fundamental to human life- that being, life itself- could ever be cut and dry. Nobody can brush their hands off and walk away from something like this.

"I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow
I'm thinking about being on my own
I think I been wasting my time
I'm thinking about getting out"

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


77 posted 12-26-2001 05:13 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I have no problems being called superficial but it should be pointed out that I said this:

"PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry.

- Your disclaimer, placed at the end of your "cutting" does no service to me or yourself and I found it to be quite superficial."

--Not Tim. The rest of your comment, Opeth, is directed at Tim.

As for your point. I'm curious. While I agree with what Hush has said (and it deserves its own thread), I want to know what approach you would use to persuade the rest of us that your 'fact' is accurate.

Historical, comparative, logical, counter-factual, common sensical, or what?

At the moment, it's an assertion.

Thanks,
Brad
  

[This message has been edited by Brad (12-26-2001 05:14 PM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


78 posted 12-27-2001 10:57 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

How do I know that what I stated was indeed factual? This is how...

Through experience. In my entire life, whenever the topic of abortion becomes an "issue" - the "religious-right" has always been the instigator. Whether I have read, viewed, personally witnessed, etc...

Now let's look at what I stated, starting with a predication that is sound and valid...

1. Abortion IS a political issue - that cannot be denied.

2. Abortion should NOT be a political issue - that is my opinion, not factual.

3. Why is abortion a political issue? - Because of religion, here in the states, it is mainly driven by christianity. That is true. The so-called feminist groups merely react to Christianity's instigation.

Therefore...

if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a politcal issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT.

My last point of my original post was this...

4. thousands, possibly millions of people have suffered torturings and death in the name of religion and its dogma throughout history...and that the religious leaders of our day now cry about abortion, to me, and logically so, is hypocritical.

I never said that I was either pro-life or pro-abortion...and I still haven't.

I never said that I agree with or disagree with much of what was written here on this thread either.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-27-2001 12:07 PM).]

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


79 posted 12-27-2001 01:39 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

"If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try and save others from themselves."
Most pro-lifers that I am acquainted with would not see it as a issue of someone saving themselves, but rather saving the unborn baby.
Most pro-choicers I am acquainted with would be more inclined to agree with the statement.
So I do have to admit, I made what I believed to be a logical assumption.
I apologize for making that assumption.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


80 posted 12-27-2001 01:55 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Excellent point, I concur. However, in my quote that you quoted, I didn't intend on explaining my position in its entirity.

You did prove my point. If you read my last reply above yours, you will see that you did, possibly untintentionaly, prove it.

That fetus is not in your womb. That fetus is not in your wife's or girlfriend's womb. Whether you disagree or not, the law says that the woman who has that fetus growing in her can have an abortion.

I do believe that Jesus once commented about obeying the laws of the land, even if unjust.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


81 posted 12-27-2001 06:19 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Just because you obey a law, does not mean you agree with the law.  
Civil disobedience?
Why do you assume I am a male?  I never said.
I also never said what my views on abortion were; I just indicated we ought to recognize the complexity of the problem and attempt to arrive at some sort of a solution to what is an insolveable problem until someone can arrive at an answer of when life begins.
Finally, as to your last comments, I am afraid I am totally unable to follow your logic and as such, will bow to your point of view and take my adieu. One should cede to superior logic.

[This message has been edited by Tim (12-27-2001 06:20 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


82 posted 12-27-2001 09:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Opeth said:

"if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a political issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT."

--That's not a fact, that's a prediction. If the religious right ceased their actions, the debate would certainly be different, but I don't think it would disappear as a political issue. It would still be a moral/ethical issue and there are plenty of other moral/ethical issues that are political issues -- issues that the religious right doesn't take part in.

--You can have a debate about abortion where religion is not mentioned.  Because this is possible, in order for your assertion to be true, you'd have to argue that any secular debate is a ruse hiding the truly religious motives of the speakers (sometimes true, sometimes not).  Human dignity is often used on the political left to justify actions and that can be used here as well.

--Or that those who argue for illegalization from a different point of view are being duped into supporting a group they shouldn't be supporting. Interestingly, you call that a 'reaction'.

--I don't support the right of a teen to commit suicide, neither does the religious right, I don't think that makes me a supporter of the religious right.

--You're certainly correct to say the religious right is big part of the whole debate and I also think you're right to argue that they are the most vocal group for illegalization, but I fail to see what pinning the political issue on a single group gives you.

--The religious right, for many people, is a term of derision, an extremist group that one should be weary of, and to label any particular issue as intrinsically intertwined with a political group seems more a strategy to avoid the issue than to address it. It's much the same strategy that the right uses with their successful redescription of 'liberal' (not completely their doing though) and the phrase 'the looney left.' The left also does the same thing when describing an historian as a conservative -- we don't have to take the argument seriously because the source is suspect.

--It all comes down to who we should listen to.  

--The religious right is also a muddy concept. Can someone who doesn't consider him or herself a member of that group still think abortion should be illegal? Or is it the determining factor in deciding who is and who is not a member of the religious right?

--If this thread has shown anything, it's shown a wide spectrum of views. Stephen is for illegalization but also agrees with Hush, Serenity, and myself that there's something wrong with a culture that stigmatizes pregnancy (Isn't it fair to say that the religious right wants both illegalization and stigmatization?). Local Rebel and myself are both pro-choice but we disagree on the issue of parental consent (I think it's necessary; LR sees it as an obstacle). The question of abortion as birth control is also an issue that has been barely touched. Many who are pro-choice recoil at that idea so does that mean there should be a legal limit to the number of abortions a woman can have?

--Given this diversity and more, I don't see what saying, "It's the religious right's fault" really contributes.  

Brad

  
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


83 posted 12-29-2001 12:19 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Brad said most of what I was going to say. There is one thing that he touched on that I'd like to expand on a bit.

Opeth said:

"if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a political issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT."

so-called? What is that supposed to mean?

Anyway- did you read anything at all that I had to say, or did you see the word feminism and skip the rest? I mean, for someone who seems to be so anti-right-wing Christian, I'd think you'd be right there with the feminists complaining about the repressed patriarchal society Christianity has fostered, and so on. But that's also a snap judgement (and sarcastic reaction) to the little bit that you've revealed in this thread. So now I'll get on with my point.

The feminist argument against abortion is in no way a reaction to the Christian aregument against abortion. It's a totally seperate thing (unless, of course, you believe that Christianity is what caused this sort of environment to begin with, or that by demanding rights women are trying to topple the age-old religious and societal custom of "Father knows best," but that's an issue before abortion even comes in...) My point is that the feminist platform is much more stable than the Christian one, because it is rooted in politics in the first place, instead of in religion, which is never a stable platform when you get into politics.

You are trying to lump it all together, and it doesn't work that way.

There are other arguments, too. Atheists believe a number of things, but at the top of the abortion no-no list is that atheists believe that this life is all we have, and aborting a fetus ends that before it begins. I don't think this argument is persuasive, because it's religion (or lack thereof) based. Some anarchists sort of feel the same way feminists do about government oppression, except that their argument is that rebuking abortion will help topple government in some way... but their point is obviously moot unless they fenagle their ways into office and topple the system from the inside out. There is the science-based argument that details a baby's development. I can't remember the stages of development, but it was a pretty convincing point of view.

Anyway, I don't see how you can possibly throw any or all of these things together and write them off as a reaction to the bullhorn of Christian resistence. There are points of view completely seperate form the Christian line of thought... and to be frankly honest, it seems to me that your point of view is more a reaction to religion than that of anyone else in this thread.... maybe if you should try seperating religion from the issue at hand.

"I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow
I'm thinking about being on my own
I think I been wasting my time
I'm thinking about getting out"

Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors