»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
John McCain - The Keating Five
| The Alley |
|
John McCain - The Keating Five |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
This site has links to a lot of interesting articles dealing with McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal. http://mccainkeatingfive.com/ |
||
| © Copyright 2008 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five".[89] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[90] political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets[89] that McCain belatedly repaid two years later.[91] In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators from whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[89] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[92] In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising "poor judgment".[92][90] In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue,[93] and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham.[94] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for the info and link, Huan. Was there any mention in that article about the following? 1. John McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company. Years later, when the IRS noticed Keating’s company had written off the gifts to McCain as business expenses, McCain fessed up and admitted filing false returns and made a “donation” to the U.S. Treasury to cover the amount he defrauded American tax payers. (Committing tax fraud is one of the least offensive things John McCain has done over his career, but this article just focuses on his role in the Keating Five, and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980’s-early 1990’s). McCain also leaked information about the Keating Five to the press multiple times in an effort to appear above the other Senators in the scandal. A 1989 Phoenix New Times article summed it up best with their title - McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. 2. John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, along with her father, made a $359,000 investment in retail property owned by Charles Keating in 1986, a year before John McCain first met with federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Keating was later convicted on 73 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and other crimes. Years later, Cindy McCain sold her investment for $15,000,000. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The penalties for tax fraud are pretty severe since it's considered a felony. Was McCain ever fined? Were charges ever filed? I mean, if he admitted filing fraudulent taxes, shouldn't he have been charged? I'm having trouble finding info on the tax fraud part. Anybody got a link or know about it? Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof: Shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years Or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations) Or both, together with the costs of prosecution. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Were you able to dig up any dirt on Obama to share with us or do only Republicans come under your microscope, Jen? |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Here you go Denise - there is a little mud on everyone sometime, but it all comes off in the wash.  How you keeping?Barackwater Here are more: Barack Scandals I would still vote for him, but that is my own choice. I find it sad that mud slinging even exists to be honest, but it has for generations of politicians, and will continue. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise -- Aw, Jennifer doesn't need much help digging up dirt on Obama. The Alley is full of it, dirt, that is, on Obama, ranging from the almost credible to the completely inane. Huan Yi -- It was indeed a interesting victory for McCain over Claire Sargent. Arizona is somewhat odd, having a majority of conservatives in its population, but not adverse to electing Democrats. Evan Mecham ran as an "independent," because he was a disgraced Republican. Recall proceedings were started even before his inauguration as Governor of Arizona. He was duly investigated, impeached and removed from office by the overwhelmingly Republican State House and Senate. McCain's "victory" over Mecham was a predictable repudiation by Republicans and Democrats alike of a rather dubious "character." Mecham's impeachment and Keating's imprisonment were part of the theater of the absurd that dominated Arizona politics at the time. To be fair, Mecham was acquitted of the criminal charges brought against him, but the impeachment rested on his misuse of state funds and obstruction of justice. All: When one goes to right wing web sites for "research," one gets a right wing view point. And vice versa. This is pretty much to be expected, and much of it is nonsense on both sides. Spouting nonsense also seems to be part of American politics, as does an unseemly amount of downright hatred and vitriol based not on a candidates record, accomplishments or lack thereof, but on some sort of fear that if things change, life is goig to be terrible, or if things remain the same, life is going to be terrible. Because I'm a registered voter, a citizen, and probably at least as opinionated as anyone else, I do care who becomes the next President. Personally, I'm sorry it won't be Hillary Clinton, but I don't think either Obama or McCain need to be characterized as devils incarnate. Jim [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-03-2008 06:25 PM).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Bless your buttons, Jimbeaux! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
In the Obama threads on this site we’ve seen a blatant racial slur and a couple of “poems” comparing Obama to Hitler get a pass from the mods and site owner. I think bringing up questions regarding McCain’s ethics violation in the Keating Five and Paxon scandals plus his admitted tax fraud, pales in comparison on the mud slinging scale. Which reminds me, when is Palin, who is also under investigation for two possible ethics violations, going to release her tax returns? [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (10-03-2008 05:26 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
She did release them. I saw them about an hour ago on Fox News. It's amazing what you can find out if you watch a REAL news channel. Hey Sharon and Jim, I'm fine, how are you? I wasn't asking if anyone could provide dirt on Obama, I was asking if Jen had uncovered any herself, or if she only reserves her microscope for Republicans. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yes, it's up on Reuters now. She released 2006 and 2007 just today. Why only those two years? Not absolutely sure but think Obama released all his from 2000 on and Biden for the last ten years. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Jenn, don't "think", but please, be sure. Thanks! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Don't worry, Sunshine, I'm sure if my facts are wrong, someone's going to speak up, perhaps a Fox News watcher. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The only thing I'll be watching for, Jen, is a straight answer to my previous question. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
As far as choice of sources for link posting, I would have to agree with you, Jim. Daily KOS, Huffington Post, Right-Wing News: none of these sites EVER give you the balanced story. All stories are told from the same decided slant without regard to the ‘other side of the coin.’ Nope, never gets flipped, at least from what I see, and I usually am on one of these sites daily. Maybe I’m just weird, but I get almost as much joy reading the flippant responses on these sites as I do in a logical debate. If you want to mount a good defense, you have to know what your enemy thinks. A lot of it is just youthful opposition, but most of it is pretty mean-spirited ad hominem blog posts meant to please the choir. Oh, I HAVE to mention the tremendous repartee that occurred between my anti-hero, Barney Frank, and self-professed hero, Bill O’Reilly. You don’t have to love or hate either of them to enjoy this swashbuckling in your face interview. I, for one, was glad to see Barney get it, for exactly the reasons described in an earlier post: about he is a coward and refused to atone for his stupidity while still blaming the Repub’s. They have enough troubles on their own, Barn-Dog, without your lies and lack of commiseration falsely adding to them. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432173,00.html. As far as the Keating Five scenario went down, there are moral laws and criminal laws. McCain broke moral laws, admitted to them, and started to understand the necessity for passing laws to limit lobbyist influence. I don’t have a problem with a politician who owns up to his mistake then tries to atone for it later with a correct action bill. Most political people don’t even bring up the K-5 anymore since McCain/Feingold Act was a direct result of politicians fighting the old boys club in order to do something right for the general public. He was censured for it. As was Joe Biden for his multiple plagiarisms. And JB also said he was wrong and sorry. Bully for both of them. To be honest, I’ve come sooooo close to running for public office on two different occasions, but my own past demons/skeletons are not ‘clean enough’ to run. I dare say most of us would probably get wet under that umbrella. We’ve made it our own to say that politicians have to be squeaky clean any more, unless of course, you have the media’s arm around your shoulder. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Were you able to dig up any dirt on Obama to share with us or do only Republicans come under your microscope, Jen?" If by "dirt" you mean something like McCain's womanizing, adultery and ethics violations, tax fraud, nope, haven't found anything like that on Obama. Have you? Just so you know, I don't discriminate or promote on basis of party membership alone as some seem to do. I eliminated several Democratic candidates because of what I discovered after putting them under my "microscope" and kept a Republican on my list of would support. Hope that answers your question, Denise. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I watched that video, tb. O'Reilly is really pretty rude, loud and kept interrupting Franks. Seemed a little silly to me and hardly the way to conduct a proper interview, but what the heck, like Ann Coulter, O'Reilly's only real claim to fame is his sensationalism and obnoxiousness. The thing about McCain and the Keating Five, well, I know he keeps saying he learned his lesson, but then he turned around and did the same darn thing again with the Paxson scandal. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If I were so inclined to "dig up dirt" on Obama, I wouldn't have to exert too much energy, starting with his own statement on the question of when life begins being above his pay grade. Yet admitting that he can't even attempt to answer that question with any degree of certainty, how can he support abortion if he has any doubt that it may actually be a life that is being exterminated by that procedure, let alone vote against legislation protecting children already born alive after botched abortions? He also stated that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they found themselves to be pregnant but didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason. I don't know, where does personal responsibility for one's actions come into play? To me, Obama has the moral integrity of a flea, without even delving into his political, business, spiritual and/or personal associations with people or groups like Rezko, Ayers, Dorne, the Rev. Wright, and ACORN (arguably a big player in our current national financial crisis, not to mention their involvement in registration and voter fraud benefiting the Democratic party). Personally, I'll take McCain any day, even knowing that if McCain is elected, we will be subject to at least another four years of venemous verbal vomit from the Left. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise! I really like "venomous verbal vomit." A great phrase. The rest of the post expresses a belief not universally held to attack a belief not universally held, which seems to be part of the alley process, but has little to do with facts. Obama said he was not qualified to make a definitive statement on the abortion issue. OK. Sounds like a pretty straightforward statement, agreed with or not. BEAR: My wife is a politics junkie, and because I like to keep her company, I watch my share of the cable news clowns from Billo and Beck and Dobbs through Keitho. Olberman is my favorite because I find him to be the funniest of the lot, and when he chooses to go off on one of his tirades, he lets viewers know up front that he's about to go off on a tirade. Also, if skeletons in the closet disqualify one from running from office, there probably wouldn't be any politicians at all, except for Barney Frank, who let his skeleton out of the closet so many years ago I'm not sure he was ever in one. Even Jimmy Carter admitted in a Playboy (gasp) interview, that he had lusted in his heart. If that were a disqualification for running for office, it would kick out just about every man and woman on earth. I don't think that the Presidential election is a joke. I do think it's more important to pay attention to the candidates than to pay much attention to what self aggrandizing pundits on either side have to say about them. But I laugh anyway. Probably disqualifies me from office. Jimbeaux |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
What you seem to be saying, Denise, is that since Obama doesn’t agree with your personal belief on when life begins, that makes him an immoral man. Conversely, if he doesn’t agree with one of your personal beliefs would that make you an immoral woman? Even theologians struggle with the question of when life begins, what makes you so certain you know the “right” answer? Does God whisper in your ear and tell you things He doesn’t tell Obama? Can you enlighten me and give me a biblical reference that deals specifically with abortion? Perhaps Obama, being the thinking man he is, pondered the question of why God allows natural abortions (miscarriages) to happen ending the “life” of a fetus and in some cases actually ordered the slaughter of infants and fetuses, (see quotes from Samuel and Hosea below) and came to the conclusion that indeed the question of when life begins in God’s view was beyond his knowing - above his pay grade. "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16) "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...." (I Samuel 15:3) Thanks for mentioning Carter, Jim. To me he’s the perfect example of a true Christian. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There's plenty to laugh about in politics, that's for sure, Jim. But Obama did not say he could not make a definite statement on the abortion issue, he said he couldn't make a difinitive statement on the issue of when life begins. I see a distinction there. No, Jen, I take issue with Obama's moral integrity, not because he doesn't agree with me, but because not being sure of when life begins himself, he would still condone the practice of abortion at all. If someone were convinced in their own mind that life doesn't begin until birth, then I could at least understand their approval of abortion. That's not the case with Obama, according to his own words. If I were not sure, I would err on the side of life, and not risk terminating a life. That is what should be considered above our pay grade. In my view, God is the only legitimate arbiter of life and death. He gives and takes away according to His purposes. I believe in the sanctity of life, that life is His gift to us and that we are usurpers of His authority when we attempt to interject ourselves into these issues, whether it be in the abortion issue, infanticide (which allowing babies born alive to die after botched abortions is) or euthenasia. And lest we forget, Obama is not God. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
So, Denise, you’ve decided to vote for a self-admitted fornicator instead of a guy who simply admits to not knowing the answer to the question of when life begins. Are there only nine Commandments in your Bible or something? And of course, since you believe that “God is the only legitimate arbiter of life and death” you must also oppose the death penalty. Correct? You’re one of those people who’d be willing to spend ten of thousands of dollars a year of tax payer money to provide for the housing and feeding of a convicted child rapist/killer. Right? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Except for Barney Frank, Jimbeaux? What about his lover who was a bigwig at Fannie May while it was going down the tubes and while Barney was giving outraged speeches in Congress on how Fannie and Freddie were fine and the warnings against them were simply a Republican bashing aiming to discredit them? Btw, the "lover" is now in the private sector, dedicating his life to the world of pottery. Not even Robert Ludlum could have made this stuff up Denise, I applaud your efforts but you're wasting your time here.  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Our economy, I think still—the fundamentals of our economy are strong." —John McCain, speaking on the morning of September 15 Are you better off today than you were 7 years ago when the Republicans took over Washington DC? Then: Overall debt was $5.7 trillion. Now: The National Debt is $9.5 Trillion! Then: - A gallon of gas cost $1.56 Now: - A gallon of gas costs over $4.00 Then: - Federal budget surplus over $200 billion Now: - FY-2008 federal deficit over $407 billion Then: - Unemployment was 3.4% Now: - Unemployment hits 5-year high, 6.1% "One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager" ........................................... By wagging a finger at Denise, Balladeer, are you trying to silence her, take away her right to voice her opinion? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course not...and she knows exactly what I mean. This ends any direct message exchange with you, btw. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Balladeer -- I was jesting about Barney Frank being out of the closet about his sexuality, the jest being more about closets than Barney Frank. Robert Ludlum is a lightweight. Not even Michael Moore could make this stuff up, and he's really good at it. Thought I'd throw that in just because mentioning Michael Moore is bound to aggravate somebody. I don't think Denise is wasting her time here. She states her point of view and defends it from a source which is meaningful to her. If people only speak to people who already agree with them. what would be the point of "discussion" forums at PiP? You (generically speaking) can't say that there's only one side to every coin, and you can't say there are two sides to every coin. It doesn't hurt to talk about coins, though. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-04-2008 04:23 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Thought I'd throw that in just because mentioning Michael Moore is bound to aggravate somebody." Dang, I wish I'd thought of that! Did you ever see Sicko, Jim? If not, get those headphoes/earbuds and watch it online. Really makes the point that our healthcare system is putting the screws to us. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. Obama's plan is a start in the right direction, more compromise than anything, but definitely a start. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Karilea quote: Was that a joke? ....... Denise So let's see if I get you, ummm, some entity who may or may not exist may decree that "life" (which that entity, which may or may not exist, apparently decrees is inviolate) "begins" when a sperm enters an egg (lest we get confused here the entity excludes animal life from said definition so as to allow extermination of other species). From that point on said "life" is "entitled" to live even if this causes distress, illness and agony even unto death to another life. Yep I think I understand. I'm real glad that the maybe god and his devotees are so certain and clear on this point. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You’re probably right Michael. And I do know what you mean, but sometimes I just can’t keep quiet. I wouldn’t characterize Obama as simply someone who admits to not knowing the answer to the question of when life begins, Jen, and that isn’t my problem with him. My problem with him, among so many other issues, is that he is someone who has admitted that uncertainty while simultaneously supporting the practice of abortion. If someone holds out the possibility that an actual life might exist but still practices or condones abortion, isn’t that person guilty of violating the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”? Do you consider killing less objectionable than fornication? At least McCain has admitted to and repented of his failings. As to the death penalty, I believe that God invests legitimate governments with that fearsome responsibility in some instances for the safety of a society. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue is small potatoes? How did you arrive at that conclusion. Their greed and irresponsibility are a major factor in this current financial crisis, from all that I've read. As to Barney Frank, maybe if members of Congress weren’t so afraid of being falsely charged with homophobia, they would have dealt with his obvious mismanagement and conflict of interest in the Fannie Mae issue long ago before it could have done so much damage to our economy. Or maybe not. At any rate, all involved should be held accountable for their actions, or inaction, whatever the case may be. Bush sounded the alarm a few years back, as did McCain. What was Obama’s position on this, the guy who received the second largest contribution from Fannie Mae, second only to Chris Dodd? Moonbeam, I don’t for a minute believe that you are trying to “get me”. And your and Jen’s sarcasm is wasted on me. Not that you care, but just so that you know. You might actually have people take you seriously if you presented yourselves more respectfully to others when expressing your views. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
You are quite right Denise I wasn't trying to "get you" I was simply trying to show the illogicality of accusing Obama of being illogical when the position you hold is imo so much more so. (Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I disrepect you.) As for the manner in which I did it and my so called lack of respect (which wasn't anything of the sort) I was merely taking my cue from your very first post to Jenn in this thread. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually, Moonbeam, I don’t think that entity who may or may not exist, had much to say about abortion. I wonder why that is. The only thing I can find that’s even remotely connected is in the Old Testament where it mentions something about a fine for causing a woman to miscarry. So, see what my thinking is - according to that entity, adultery gets you the ultimate penalty of being stoned to death at the city gate, but causing an abortion only gets you a fine. Seems rather obvious to me which is the greater sin in that entity’s eyes. Even knowing that, there are still those who want to make the fornicator, John McCain, President. Doesn’t that seem like they’re disrespecting the entity? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You've grossly misunderstood Balladeer, Jen. He wasn't being demeaning or belittling of me or my right to voice my opinion. He never has and he never would. My first reply in this thread was an honest question, moonbeam, which still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Stating that you haven't found anything doesn't really speak to one's efforts in trying to uncover any. But so be it. Sometimes a non-answer is the answer. Have a nice evening ladies. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
You have a lovely evening, too, Denise! |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Prior to Roe v Wade, individual states had the right to set standards under which an abortion might legally take place. Quite early in our history, when state and Federal laws were based on English Common Law, abortion was illegal everywhere with significant to drastic penalties for everyone involved. Over time, some states began to allow for health exceptions while some did not. Later in the evolution of abortion law some states began to decriminalize abortion if certain conditions conditions, including the age of the woman and the length of gestation were met. And other states did not. Roe v Wade codified abortion law on a Federal level. It still does not condone all abortions under all conditions, but in effect, secures a woman's right to choose. It is still challenged by state lawmakers who seek to impose stricter conditions, but, to date, the basics of Roe v. Wade remain intact. For many people, abortion remains a moral, not a legal issue. That's fine. When confronted with a personal situation where abortion is a possibility, they are free to choose not to have an abortion, to counsel others not to have an abortion, and to lobby for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade. It's their legal right, and for many, a moral obligation. What they are not free to do, however, is prevent someone who meets the qualifications in Roe v. Wade from excercising a diffent choice. For many people, abortion is a legal issue, not a moral one. Legally, it doesn't matter why they make that choice, it is their legal right, and it doesn't matter under the law what anybody else thinks about an indidual decision. Pro-choice advocates have a right to espouse their position, counsel others from their point of view, and lobby to keep Roe v Wade intact. What they don't have a right to do is force someone eligible under Roe v. Wade, to have an abortion for any reason at all. My question is, why is a a woman's choice to conceive or abort anybody elses business? If all one has to fall back on is a need to force a religious stance on others who don't share it, that seems run counter to the ideal of the seperation of church and state. Which, of course, is a whole other mare's nest of incongruities. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Jim, you wrote: "why is a woman's choice to conceive or abort anybody elses business?" Why? In it's simpliest of terms, it is a form of genocide. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I read a thought provoking blurb the other day, Jim. Said something like if women lost the right to choose, a rapist could then choose the mother of his children. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jimbeaux: quote: Jim ... howdy. Hope you don't mind my interjection here. I think it is because abortion is a public service offered by medical professionals, that its concerns are more than private. And the question of whether it is ending human life pertains to more than just the mothers. If some consider the unborn to be human beings, then it should be obvious why they would consider it a human rights crises and seek to defend the defenseless. Admittedly most pro-lifers are of religious persuasion, though not all. Still, what does separation of church and state have to do with asserting that the unborn are human? The moral principle of not killing innocent human life is already held firmly by both sides of the debate. And though I believe that such moral principles are unsupportable as obligatory in a non-religious paradigm (other than as preferences), they are still held by most whether consistently or not. The issue of abortion is about whether the unborn are human beings. The weight of science (particularly embryology) strongly supports that they are indeed human. The only other religious aspect hidden inside this debate might be that the insistence on individual autonomy is stronger on the side of the unreligious, where any divine signposts or boundaries in nature are more easily disregarded as inconclusive or even nonexistent. And still, I think with these commonly held moral principle taken for granted (saving the question of why for later), the argument for fetal humanity is strong quite apart from Theology. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jennifer: quote: Jennifer this argument really doesn't hold much strength. So a mother terminates an innocent human life because of a horrific act of aggression of done by someone else. That doesn't even begin to stop the consequences of the rapist's choice. It doesn't diminish the memories of the rape in the least. It doesn't stop the wondering whether it really was right to kill who was from her own body also. It does add the trauma of abortion to the trauma of rape. As terrible as it all is, I can at least imagine a woman going through with the birth of the child in a proud defiance of all that was wrong in the rape. The rapist can never choose who this child will turn out to be. The rapist can never choose to stop a determination that is willing to defeat the past by practicing love and total acceptance of a totally new human being. And while I can never make someone see it this way ... It should at least be obvious that an argument about abortion nullifying the "choice" of a rapist, and that being the only means of doing so, is quite flimsy. Just something else for you to consider. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Bear. No, it's not. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Hi Steven -- As always, I respect your viewpoints. I have never argued that a pro-life position is wrong. I have suggested that a pro choice position isn't "wrong" either. I suggest that nobody need be forced to have an abortion and nobody need be forced to not have one. The choice can be made according to the dictates of one's conscience, and not everyone's conscience dictates the same thing. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Stephen, the link below will take you to the site and from there you can download the entire article. It's a real eye-opener. "few states have passed special laws to aid the large numbers of raped women who choose to raise their rape conceived children. Without such laws, in most states, a man who fathers a child through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that child as does any other father of a child." "Rapists Exercising Parental Rights over Their Rape Conceived Children: Why the Law Has Failed To Address this Problem - Shauna R. Prewitt, Georgetown University Law Center" http://works.bepress.com/shauna_prewitt/1/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Jim, why do you think that same argument is unlikely to be applied to a mother's two-year-old daughter? Nobody need be forced to killer their toddler and nobody need be forced to not kill their child? Let's face it. Not all things come down to personal choice. Therein, after all, would lie anarchy. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
May I lend some sanity here? Only 1 percent of ALL abortions are rape-connected. That means we have a law on the books for 1%, and 99% of the rest of US just have to live with it. 1.3 million US abortions a year. The aborted number would make it the 7th largest city in the United States. Sorry man, that's sick. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
There's nothing much good about abortion, or for that matter killing animals for sport or food. Life consists of a series of choices, ranging from the unconscious, through the insignificant and simple to the momentous and complex. Often we use aids, maybe crutches, to help us cope mentally with the more difficult ones. Justifying society's interference in whether or not a woman has an abortion on the grounds of social economics (the "we pay, we say" argument) is in my view one of the most tenuous justifications I have yet heard. I guess such an argument would ultimately take us back to the days of darkened rooms, carbolic soap, knitting needles and rue. And then there's religion - or perhaps more relevantly the belief in a god who knows about and cares about our material condition, as opposed to our spiritual condition. Apart from the obvious logical difficulty with that initial premise, the application of rules laid down by such a deity to the question of abortion involves selective leaps of faith. These involve, inter alia, faith in the existence of the deity, faith that "he" made the rules, faith in a mode of application of those rules, faith that the fertilized egg does in fact constitute life within the meaning of the rules. But nevertheless if a person is possessed of the mentality that allows them to believe these chains of faith based reasoning such a person, it has to be admitted, is then equipped with a terrific aid for dealing with life's more difficult choices. In fact many choices simply disappear. Issues which to non-believers may be complex matters involving a compassionate and individualistic approach become black and white. In the case of abortion, life choices are removed. Such thorny matters as the issue of whether death of an unborn foetus is always the worst option when weighed against, for instance, a life of mental illness for another being, are not to be considered. Complexities such as a woman's mental and physical state, the circumstances of the conception, financial pressures, family coercion, drug issues, male domination, blackmail, social expectation, naivety, failure of education, poverty, criminal assault all vanish. Fortunately for believers, individual circumstances are not to be taken into consideration in applying "divine rules". Yes, Ron, all things start with personal choice. In my view life IS choice and I for one prefer to allow myself the flexibility to make those choices (at least I think I do! What my subconcious is doing I have no idea). That is not to advocate anarchy, although "anarchy" in our natural state is perhaps the natural condition; are the birds anarchic? "Civilisation" is essentially the modification of personal choices to allow communal living, in a manner never "intended" by nature (whole different topic). Lay down laws, and rules, but have courts and tribunals to interpret and apply those rules in the light of particular circumstances. Abortion is never a "good" choice. Instinctively I rail against it, and the idea of using it as a cheap and easy method of contraception I find abhorrent. But to zealously dictate from the comfort of maleness (or any other non pregnant condition): "thou shalt not escape the consequences of your sin" and never mind the circumstances, seems to me to be devoid of logic and compassion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Okay, Moonbeam. And, again, why shouldn't the same logic be applied to the two-year-old daughter? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I am not sure if we are talking about the same logic, because I don't see why it shouldn't Ron. My logic simply implies that very little is simple, and accordingly that such questions as the power of life and death, mental illness or health etc, of one being over another should not be dictated by some universally applied rule. Life is generally a mess and requires messy solutions. Clearly, as there is presumably no argument that a 2 year old girl is a physically independent, separately conscious being, most reasonable people would, I think, feel there are fewer circumstances where it would be reasonable for a mother to kill her daughter than in the case, say, of a one week old foetus. But the logic that I was citing - individually tailored solutions (to use a horribly bureaucratic phrase) - still holds. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Fewer circumstances, moonbeam? Would you care to elaborate on that? I would certainly hope that there would be NO circumstances imaginable where it would ever be deemed reasonable, by anybody, for a mother to kill her 2 year old child. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Denise The logic would of course break down if there were no circumstances, so of course there are such circumstances. You have 5 daughters, all equally loved. A gunman breaks into your home and kills daughter number 1. He then hands you a pistol and instructs you to kill daughter number 2 or he will also shoot and kill daughters 3, 4, and 5. Ok, I know this scenario needs added detail to be watertight, but I can think of dozens of others where society or a court would not blame a mother for killing her daughter as the lesser of two evils. In several of the scenarios I have in mind she would be hailed as a self sacrificing heroine in fact. M And also: Tracy and her Mom were vacating in Austria. Always a keen venicular enthusiast her Mom suggested to Tracy that they should go ride on the famous Austerhausen quadruple track line up the nearby mountain. When they arrived they had missed a ride by seconds, they watched the train full of 100 tourists start off up the mountain. The kindly operator offered for them to ride in the empty carriage on the parallel up line. Tracy agreed and jumped in excitedly. Her Mom hesitated, she'd always wanted to operate the signals and points of a venicular and the nice operator seeing her interest agreed to let her. Soon both veniculars were proceeding up the mountain at a stately pace with Tracy's Mom learning how to control the signals and points. "Just gotta go to the gents", the English speaking operator said to Tracy's Mom, "you'll be fine for a second or two". In that second or two though an empty venicular suddenly appeared plunging down the line on which the tourists' train was rising. In a few seconds there would be an impact that would kill and main a 100 people. There was one chance! Halfway down the mountain a crossover line enabled trains to be switched from one line to the other. Tracy's Mom thought quickly, her daughter was on the other line! One life for a hundred. She closed her eyes and pulled the points lever. ......... Anyway come to think of it Denise didn't your god make the ultimate sacrifice too: his beloved son, for some nebulous reason which escapes me for the moment! M [This message has been edited by moonbeam (10-05-2008 02:43 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If he handed me a pistol, I'd shoot him. So, please, feel free to list one or two of your other dozens of scenarios. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I just did, above (see my edit). Yes, as I said the scenario needed added detail. But in any event, I knew you'd say that and it matters not because it's not what you would actually do that matters but what would be considered reasonable. To use your own words, it would probably be deemed quite reasonable for a mother to kill her daughter in those circumstances, specially if she knew the man was wearing body armour and she was a useless shot (there that's a bit of the missing detail). I, for one, on a jury, wouldn't convict a mother who killed her daughter under those circumstances, or in the circumstances of Tracy's mom. Would you? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Honestly, I'd save my daughter in your second scenario because I have a connection with her that I don't have with the strangers. Call me selfish. I'm not God. In your first scenario, body armor or not, I'd give it my best shot, and keep shooting till I was out of bullets and he was running for his life trying to dodge them. Hopefully one of the shots would find his achilles heel. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Denise, you're either avoiding or missing the point. What you personally would or wouldn't do is totally irrelevant. Perhaps what is more relevant is this question: I'll ask you again: would you on a jury vote to convict a mother for killing one person instead of 100? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron! Re: "why do you think that same argument is unlikely to be applied to a mother's two-year-old daughter? Nobody need be forced to killer their toddler and nobody need be forced to not kill their child? Let's face it. Not all things come down to personal choice. Therein, after all, would lie anarchy." I don't understand the relationship of this first reference to anything I might have or did say, but, because moonbeam also mentions the killing of two year olds, maybe there is a specific something going on I'm not aware of. Wouldn't be the first time. On the second statement, I think the reverse might be just as reasonably argued. Everything can revolve around personal choice, and it doesn't need to lead to anarchy. Please note I am not making a statement about absolutes. Below are all four of Websters definitions of anarchy, included so there is not suggestion that I picked out the one which best supports my thoughts. Anarchy: 1. a state of society without government or law. Well, I think you, who have made your own personal choices, haven't brought us to the brink of anarchy as defined above. I don't think my personal choices, even though some have differed from yours, have brought us to the state of anarchy either. Personal choices resulted in personal consequences and often consequences beyond a given individual. As a simple example, when I chose to close my greenhouse business, one consequence for me was that I made a substantial amount of money selling off the land. A consequence for my employees was that they were out of work. Now, in the '30's, as a germane but not all inclusive example, hundreds of thousands of businesses were closed and millions were left without work. It was an economically terrible time. Nevertheless, anarchy did not result. We still had a government. There were still laws. ANARCHY 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. This definition seems to describe a concrete, identifiable social condition which has existed historically, and is the condition of some states today. It doesn't seem to address "personal choice," which is fine, being outside the scope of the definition. ANARCHY 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. OK, that's a political theory with three components. The advocacy of no direct government seems impractical on it's face. An anarchist may choose to advocate that notion in a free society. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, or give it it much creedence. We're free to choose to dismiss it. "coercive government" from the definition is thornier. A government, let's take an elected one, like ours -- has by collective individual decision, a right to make and enforce laws. And some of these are pretty darned coersive, like the draft when it was in effect. Not everyone chose to follow this law as we did. There were personal and social consequences stemming from either choice, but anarchy did not ensue. The anarchist proposal espousing "cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society" from the definition" seems to a description of the society which we have. Does it sound odd or off base to say "Democracy requires cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society" If one eliminitates emotionally charged connotations of the word "anarchy" our societ seems to work because people "choose" to work together. There is nothing to suggest that people have to agree about everything. ANARCHY 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. The first part of the definition is the description of a state or states of being, not a description of nature or consequences of choice. The example of the word as it can be commonly used is no more than that. I'm sorry that whomever the "he" is in the example of usage experienced confusion chaos disorder and intellectual and moral anarchy following his loss of faith. But the example doesn't flow from the definition, and there is no reason to accept that this anarchic state is a logical, predictable, or invetable consequence of a loss of faith. It doesn't have much to do with the consequences of free choice either. I'm glad we have a government. I'm glad we have rules. I'm glad we have a great latitude to make free choices within the context of those rules. I'm also glad we don't have a state religion which it thinks we should or must agree with. It lets all of us make very personal choices. I don't mean to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head which aren't there, but it seems that in your post describing anarchy as a likely consequence of choice, moralistic judgement is the underlying source of the argument. I wouldn't care even if it were overt source of the argument. It's a choice anyone is entitled to make. However, the excesses of a religious based limitation of choices can get pretty scary. In Merry Olde England, there were times when one could be murdered by the state for a) happening to be a Catholic; b) choosing to remain a Catholic; or c), converting to Catholicism. Similary, in Merry Olde England under Catholic reign, one took one's life in one's hands, or had one's life taken from them, for choosing to be a Protestant. And etc for many past and present societies. Sometimes, this leads to downright anarchy. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What I hear you saying, Moonbeam, is that within the bounds of your morality it's okay to kill if doing so prevents someone else from being killed. Okay, fine. Is that the same criteria you want to apply to abortions? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
No not so starkly as that. All you hear me saying, Ron, is that the sort of dilemmas posed by abortion, and the sort of scenarios I put to Denise are not appropriately resolved in my opinion by imposing inflexible moral, economic, social or religious rules to be applied in every case without regard to particular circumstances. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The reference, Jim, is in my second sentence. Nobody need be forced to killer their toddler and nobody need be forced to not kill their child? That's a paraphrase, of course, of your earlier sentence. I suggest that nobody need be forced to have an abortion and nobody need be forced to not have one. I changed your noun from abortion to a two-year-old, but it could just as easily been a newborn or a teenager. My point was and remains that human law (not religion) necessarily limits human choice. I'm reeealy sorry, now, for even mentioning anarchy (the absence of that human law) and sending you off an a tangent. The bottom line, Jim, is that I don't think your underlying philosophy -- a very Sixties-ish 'do it, don't do it, it's no skin off my nose either way' -- really addresses the central arguments of abortion. In making it a personal choice, I think you're very neatly side-stepping the question of whether it should be a personal choice. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But doesn't that pretty much go without saying, Moonbeam? In every scenario you painted, and I'm fairly certain in every scenario you didn't yet paint, a mother who kills her two-year-old is going to go to trial. And, as you pointed out, some might well be acquitted. Therein lies the answer to your "without regard to particular circumstances." Do you propose putting every woman who has an abortion on trial to determine if the circumstances warranted her actions? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron -- re "My point was and remains that human law (not religion) necessarily limits human choice." I think I said that too. I think I said exactly that. I don't know why it is hard for me to make what you think is my underlying philosophy clear. It's exactly the same as yours, give or take a few details. Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It does matter what I would or wouldn't do in any given situation because how I would vote on a jury would probably pass through the filter of how I think I would have handled myself in a particular situation. But just let me add that if the choice were between saving my own life and that of 100 people I would choose to forfeit my own life to save the 100 people. I would not make the decision to forfiet my daughter's life, though, for those same 100 people. It would be interesting to see a poll asking mothers that same question. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I think it would be interesting if we could get this thread back on topic. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: If it did, Ron, I wouldn't be having the discussion. Tell that to Sarah Palin (Denise? Sorry in advance if I have misunderstood you) the Catholic church and many on what is considered the far right of religious movements, who want to make it illegal in practically all circumstances without discussion, appeal or any recourse. Sorry Jenn, I'll try and shut up now. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Uh, you mean like killing two-year-olds, Moonbeam? Of course, in reality, we have trials in this country, as already discussed. There's always discussion and pretty much always room for appeal and recourse. Those special circumstances still have a chance to be aired. So, if that's your only reason for giving women a choice? (And don't worry too much about Jennifer. I think exploring the issues IS on-topic in a political discussion, and a lot more productive than character slurs. In any event, I'm sure Jen doesn't want to tell people what to talk about.) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Folks, I just had my first look at the thread. I notice that it was interestingly enough titled "the Keating Five—John McCain. Apparently the subject cannot be tolerated here, because attempts to derail the conversation began almost immediately, first by trying to get the subject off of The Keating Five and Senator McCain"s involvement with that affair and onto the flaws of Democrats. (Plenty to look at there, by the way, though I'm a Democrat of the further left persuasion and don't really like to dwell on the thought.) Then by shifting the conversation onto Senator Obama's flaws (I'm still waiting to hear from the guy who reported that Obama was a Marxist with a little bit of actual sourcing on that one). Then to calling Senator Obama names (I thought I heard somebody call Obama a dirty squealer or say he wore cootie glasses, but I must have been mistaken. Thank goodness), then to talking about abortion. Nothing funny about abortion. A sure fire attention grabber. If I didn't have my homework ready, and it was coming time for math class, I think I'd try starting a conversation about abortion and hope the teacher didn't remember to collect the homework on the Keating Five. I mean fractions. I meant fractions. Though it doesn't look as though folks are willing to allow the subject to return to Senator McCain and The Keating Five, about which I know almost nothing; not anytime soon. I have a pretty good idea that most of the stuff about abortion has already been said, and that there are lots of familiar buttons for everyone to push and everybody has well rehearsed conversational gambits that they feel are sure clinchers. We could beat each other over the head about the exact moment life started. How about everybody bringing out the argument that they think will change the minds of the people on the other side and make them realize how wrong they were all along? Now I don't have any arguments like that that I could offer either side; but no doubt I'm the only guy here who thinks that way. Or each of us might try to come up with a new argument, an approach that the folks on the other side haven't heard before. I suspect that I'm not about to change anybody on the anti-choice side with a brilliant logical argument. If Thomas Acquinas himself were to come up with an argument on the pro-choice side, I seriously doubt it would sway anybody. If Albert Einstein came out with an anti-abortion argument, my friends and I would probably put it down to an intellectual slump. Of course others may see the world as a lot more flexible that I do about such things. As for me, maybe somebody could fill me in about the Keating Five? Yours sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
My mistake, Ron. I had this crazy idea that the subject heading in the discussion was what the discussion was supposed to be about, that going totally off topic is being rude to the person who started the thread. A little rambling, sure, why not, I do that myself, but hijacking a thread and turning it into a protracted debate about a subject that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, as has happened in this thread, and then chastising the person who started the thread for merely suggesting they’d like to see discussion get back on topic, seems a bit much to me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: In that regard I guess its similar to presidential politics? quote: Nah, its much more fun to beat each other over the head about who is better McCain or Obama. Really Bob, you could have been content to say "that's not the subject of this thread" than to disparage the content of what has been discussed for the past few replies. If you want to make a discussion (that you don't particularly like) seem futile, at least be reminded that presidential politics can be charged with all the same foibles and usual futility. But with opinions of presidential candidates, as with attitudes about abortion and other social crises, argumentation and discussion still influences and changes minds from time to time. Back to McCain I say. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
C'mon Ron, it's me that specialises in cheap shots (apparently). What's the point of levelling your toy gun at Jenn and distracting me, especially without any winky faces.  I freely admit I know less about the Keating Five than the Famous Five and I've forgotten how I got involved in this abortion thing now, but then it's about more than just abortion, which is what makes it interesting. So ... Precisely Ron; like killing 2 year olds. Not so long ago in some parts of Africa there were no effective written or statute based laws. Dubious actions were simply "tried" by a tribal gathering - a mixture of developed morality, social acceptability, historical precedent etc. Our "civilised" system is simply a written code designed to "go with the grain" of society. Or to put it in the legal jargon, what the "reasonable man or woman" would expect. As I said above, there are clearly far fewer circumstances where society would deem it reasonable for a mother to kill her 2 yr old, than in the case of a mother terminating a pregnancy. One might therefore expect that society would wish to see the presumption of illegality in the former case. In the latter case it is MY PERSONAL OPINION that there are sufficient complexities and uncertainties (coupled with spin off disadvantages to illegality) to make blanket illegality unwise and unjust. Nevertheless there are arguments which sway me somewhat in that direction; the "will of god" is not one of them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, this thread was introduced shortly after the Acorn thread was initiated, along a tit for tat line... Interestingly enough, not one lefter had any comment to make on the Acorn thread. One must assume that the facts were so clear and so well known by all that repudiation would be futile, which is what some people do when faced by such a situation. That is why discussions over topics here are fairly useless, except for letting the poster let off a little steam. One can pretend to be fair and open-minded but, if concrete facts surface which may go against what someone wants to champion, it is simply ignored with a pretense that it doesn't really exist, along the lines of a "if I close my eyes, you can't see me" mentality. This is Balladeer and I approve this message |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I don't think I've seen the Acorn thread. I'll have to look. It'd be funny if I'd written something there and had lost track, wouldn't it? Did you have a chance to have a look at that longish article I sent you? That did come as a surprise to me and actually felt like a new way of looking at old information. I really would like to know your reaction. BK |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"if concrete facts surface which may go against what someone wants to champion, it is simply ignored with a pretense that it doesn't really exist, along the lines of a "if I close my eyes, you can't see me" mentality." You nailed it, Balladeer, good job! That's exactly what happened in this thread! Posters who wanted to ignore McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal, the topic of this thread, simply closed their eyes and moved on to discussing other things. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Bob, you really need to work on your sarcasm. You don't do it as well as you could. Of course, if you want to talk about the Keating Five, I think you'll find no one is stopping you. Oh, wait, that's right; it's a subject about which you admittedly "know almost nothing." That's okay, too, though, because once again no one is stopping your from following Jennifer's links early in the thread and learning more. And just for the record, Bob, we're not really talking about abortion in this thread. I'm not sure how many have figured it out yet, but we're really talking about the justifications and rationalizations we use to support what we "feel" is right. That's the kind of thing I think writers are supposed to talk about? Jennifer, we do indeed try to stay on-topic, but that's a necessarily ill-defined concept. For example, when you asked about Palin's tax returns very early on in this thread, I'm sure you felt it was in the spirit of the political discussion, even though it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the Keating Five. Ditto the discussion about O'Reilly, Franks, and "McCain's womanizing, adultery and ethics violations, tax fraud." And, of course, while you didn't bring up the issue of abortion, you did join in initially with this: "What you seem to be saying, Denise, is that since Obama doesn’t agree with your personal belief on when life begins, that makes him an immoral man." You went on from there, for several paragraphs. And as far as I'm concerned, Jennifer, you were still very much on-topic. No one is trying to derail your topic. But neither do you get to artificially limit the scope of what is on-topic. If someone started a thread and titled it "Only Good Things about McCain," do you really think they would be allowed to steer the conversation so narrowly? We're talking about the issues. Anyone gets to decides what's important to them, but no one gets to decide what's important to everyone. quote: Okay, Moonbeam (glad you stuck around). So what you're saying now is that some lives are more important than other lives? Would it be safe to presume that a ten-year-old is more valuable than the two-year-old, then? At what point do we reach the apex of what I would guess is a bell curve? I mean, I know darn well I stopped being more valuable than a toddler a long time ago. Even to me. (just because you wanted a winky face) |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Bob, here’s a link to some background info on the Keating Five scandal. The site will point you to other sources if you want to explore the topic in depth. http://mccainkeatingfive.com/ Thanks for the pointers,Ron. From now on I'll simply ignore posters off topic questions or off topic remarks in threads I start and not respond to them. Perhaps, indeed, that's the best way to keep peace and help keep the discussion focused. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
You're right about what this is about, Ron. I think it's mainly a male thing though, this desire to convince the world that one's subjectivity is really objectivity, or the need to rationalise the visceral towards something more intellectual or empirical. Or perhaps it's just to do with self-justification, self-worth. I've been meaning to say for a few years that you have a marvellously dogged debating technique which I must say I've rarely seen done as well, except maybe by John Humphrys of the Radio 4 Today programme (you'd enjoy that). In summary it involves repeated temptations or invitations to the other party to expand upon something that they didn't say in the first place. Put another way its kinda like handing your adversary a big spade with which to convert a small depression into a ruddy great man trap with spikes at the bottom. Only in this case the spade is too obviously clumsy, there isn't even a small depression and I'm too lazy to dig. This reply could get bogged down in all the usual paraphernalia of the abortion debate. I'm not going there. However I will say that "I" haven't said anything about the value of lives. On the other hand I suppose that if you took a brutally simplistic approach you might analyse the fact that some societies regard it as reasonable to kill a foetus, but generally not a 2 yr old, as being indicative of a "value" approach to life. "Value" itself though is, of course, relative, as our banks and politicians are just finding out. A bottle of mineral water does not have the same "value" to a traveller in Iceland (or maybe it does after today!) as it would to a traveller in the Sahara - the value of the water is determined by background factors. It seems quite evident to me, based, amongst other things, upon the empirical evidence of society's reaction to the issue of abortion, that the background factors in the determination of whether a foetus should live (if indeed it was living in the first place - one of the background issues) are of a nature to make it far less certain that it should, than in the case of a 2 year old girl. |
||
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
Our economy, I think still—the fundamentals of our economy are strong." —John McCain, speaking on the morning of September 15 Are you better off today than you were 7 years ago when the Republicans took over Washington DC? I am. I pay more for everything, but can you name one time in the history of the USA that prices of anything went backwards? Then: Overall debt was $5.7 trillion. Now: The National Debt is $9.5 Trillion! OK, look at the previous 8 years, Did the ND start at 5.7 when Clinton took office? Then: - A gallon of gas cost $1.56 Now: - A gallon of gas costs over $4.00 Did anyone notice that the cost of gas really started rising when Democrats took over congress 2 years ago? coinsidence? Then: - Federal budget surplus over $200 billion Now: - FY-2008 federal deficit over $407 billion OK, look at the previous 8 years, Did the Budget start at $200 billion when Clinton took office? Then: - Unemployment was 3.4% Now: - Unemployment hits 5-year high, 6.1% Hello, did nobody notice that when you raise the minimum wage that unemployment goes up. Always has, always will. Figure it out. Also it started going up when Dems took over 2 years ago. "One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager" I'm sorry, this is weak. Please describe what company this person owns that receives this money, and why. Many companies make money from other companies. This is how it business works. Why don't you look at the money that the former CEO's of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac have made. Over $100 million, Both Democrats, Cooking the books to make unearned bonus' and put us in the mess we are in. Oh, by the way, one of them works for Obama, and another by the way. Check out how much Obama has received from them in donations. $300,000. Second highest in history. The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very good points - which will be predictably ignored. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I’ve only had time to check one point in your post, WTBAKELAR. The price of gas started to rise when Bush took office in 2000 and Congress was controlled by Republicans and it has climbed fairly steadily ever since. According to the chart, the first big jump happened about 2005, when the Republicans still controlled Congress. But you are right about the spike over the last year. One thing you failed to mention though is that the price is going down again now. Should we give Bush or the Democratic Congress credit for that? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Anyway, in response to my own suggestion that the thread topic see the light of day again, I offer the following: John McCain wants you to forget about his role in our country's last major financial crisis and costly bailout: the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s. But voters deserve to know that the failed philosophy and culture of corruption that created the savings and loan crisis then are alive in the current crisis -- and in John McCain's plans for our economic future. We just released a short documentary about John McCain's role in that financial crisis -- watch it now and share it with your friends: http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And there's this, deals with McCain's team's response: http://www.crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/campaign-now-claims-mccains-admitted-keat I'm beginning to get the feeling we might see some fireworks at the debate tomorrow night. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Before-birth? two years old? My folks always said that a fetus became viable when it graduated medical school. I still have a long ways to go. In Rome. if my memory works appropriately, Roman law mandated that the Father had absolute right of life and death over his children until he died. It was all conditional until then. I can't say if this remained true after Constantine became Emperor. An interesting question. But my interest is in the Keating Five, and I thank J.M. for the reference. I really don't know much about the scandal; sorry about that, Ron: I hate letting the old side down. Thanks for the toleration, though. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Going off topic, Bob, but have you read anything by Naomi Wolf? I watched a very disturbing video last night featuring her. I honestly couldn't get a real feel for what's she about, other than the obvious. I'll find the link and send it to you. It runs for about half an hour so you might not have time to get to it for a while. I just found her interesting, informed and was sort of wondering how credible she really is. But I also got a vibe that I found disturbing or something. And I loved your medical school joke! Mind if I borrow it for the next abortion debate? Edited to correct Naomi's last name. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob, I'd love to discuss with your parents what they meant when they used the word "viable"! Jenn, I totally promise to look up the Keating Five soon. |
||
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
To be fair, It is a free market that controls the price of fuel. The government has stayed out of it as they should. The real problem with the price of fuel is the market demand, the week dollar and our massive requirments in this country. We need to save fuel any way we can, but, FIRST WE NEED FUEL. We are importing 70% of our petroleum to this country. IMPORTING !!! That means our money is leaving this country to make other countries rich and our Dollar worth less every day. That is why drilling and finding and using our own natural resources is so important. We are paying more for a barrel of oil than other countries because our dollar is week. (Caused by the deficit) We all need to Stop the BS. We enjoy our way of life in America, We are spoiled, and I am OK with that. We have a right to enjoy the fruits of our labor. BUT, We need to make sure we can continue our way of life and not be bought out by another country when we no longer have the means to support ourselves. A country that is self-sufficient is a strong country. Bottom Line. What do we do when the countries that we are beholding to start to call in their markers? What if China decides it wants our land for the enormous debt we owe them? Say, Alaska? What if Canada and Mexico decide to stop selling us oil? How many days would it be before this country grinds to a sickening halt? Remember, only 30% self-sufficient means only 30% of our country will be running. Who gets it? It wont be the general public. Now tell me how important it is to find and use our own natural resources, pay off our debts, stop funding corrupt foreign governments, and start looking out for our country and our future. Final Question? Who is better equiped to do this for our country? Who has fought for our country and defended it? Who has the experience, judgment, and knowledge to accomplish this? The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Umm, so what does that tell you about the sagacity of people who decided to raise the minimum wage at time when your economy was over borrowed, over heated and basically bust? And anyway, hello!, you are totally wrong, mandatorily lifting wage levels doesn't mean that higher unemployment necessarily follows. That is only so if politicians are selfish enough to do it for political reasons at a time when businesses are unable to absorb the extra costs or consumers are unwilling or unable to pay more. quote: You aren't seriously suggesting that there is some sort of correlation between being forced to kill people by your government and a greater expertise in governing a country? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Moonbeam, I certainly don't want to put words into someone's mouth. That sounds very unsanitary! I much prefer to think of it as interpreting what someone has said into a wider context that, perhaps, they had failed to consider. For example, your post seems to hint that your own stance on abortion has been shaped -- or perhaps justified? -- by "society's reaction to the issue of abortion." I'm guessing you haven't considered that in the wider context of history? I mean, aren't you rather glad that Lincoln didn't share your trust in his society's reaction to the issue of slavery? There's certainly nothing wrong with saying you agree with society's current view on abortion. I'm not sure how rigorous it is to contend you agree with society because of society, though? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ron!! You are quite hilarious . You say you don't want to do it then you do it all over again in the very next paragraph! I think you are a compulsive putter of words . Sure in your third paragraph you go on to do as you say you think you do, i.e. make me examine a statement in a wider context, but by that time you've already written you second paragraph which takes it upon itself, completely unjustifiably, to suggest that MY stance on abortion has been shaped by society. Actually I see I'm being unfair. If you think that my "stance" on abortion begins and ends with my contention that abortion should not be illegal then I guess you might say that that position has been influenced by the attitude of society (and, as I said, other things). The distinction from your Lincoln example is that I'm not necessarily agreeing with society at all, many societies and elements of societies don't agree that abortion should be legal as you know. That's the whole point. Anybody looking to crystallise their attitude to abortion by looking at what "society" believed would be utterly confounded. It's actually that very conflict and indecision in society that's, as you put it, "shaping" my view. But not really even my view. Just the starting point, or the default, if you like. All I was endeavouring to convey is that while the killing 2 yr olds is not a matter of great debate by society, the matter of killing foetuses is. I would reference you back to the "reasonable man" of the legal world. The reasonable man, it might reasonably be said, would regard a law making the killing of 2 year olds illegal, as being reasonable. It is however by no means certain that the same reasonable man would regard a law prohibiting the killing of foetuses as being reasonable. More pertinently, given the place that this debate really started, the reasonable man would probably regard a law prohibiting the killing of foetuses purely on the basis of some "law of a particular god", as being barmy. Anyway never mind that, the point is that empirical evidence shows society to be uncertain, divided about the issue, and all I was saying was that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that the issue is therefore considerably more complex than the debate (or lack of it) as to whether 2 yr olds should be killed. With this as my starting point I have then tried to examine the types of issues that make it more complex, which I'm certainly not going rehearse here, and I have made my mind up (i.e. IMO) that less harm (don't ask me to define or expand upon "harm") will be done with a default position of legality than illegality. That's just the beginning though, because for what it's worth I think the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" lead to extremely unhelpful polarisations. As I said way up above, life is a mess, and this issue is a particular muddle, a muddle which is not helped by people taking extreme positions and sticking to them in all circumstances. And yes, if it was feasible, I'd like to see nearly every instance of proposed abortion examined by a sympathetic "tribunal" (parents, medics, clergy, friends), with a view to offering support and exploring all possible options. But don't ask me to write a white paper on proposed abortion law because I ain't going there. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But that's not evidence of any such thing, Moonbeam. If it was, then the issue of whether human beings should be slaves would be equally complex and troublesome. Probably a few hundred times more complex, in fact, since we ended up fighting a really nasty war over it. The alternative is to suggest that what was once very complex grew simple over time not because the issue changed but simply because society changed its views on the issue? I think, rather, that most people would agree that slavery was pretty simple all along, was completely wrong all along, but some people just didn't want to admit it. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
You're doing it again Ron, lol. What I actually said was that there is a debate about whether abortion is morally right or wrong, you won't deny that presumably; I went on to say that that debate was more complex than the debate as to whether 2 year olds should be killed, you probably won't deny that either (unless in the future you believe people might be as exercised about killing a one week old foetus to "save" a mother as they would be about killing a 2 year old girl). So you are, amongst other things, conveniently ignoring the fact that I was making a comparison not stating an absolute. But never mind that. I think what you just said inadvertently goes to the heart of what makes the abortion issue so interesting, i.e. the qualities of the debate which make it different to most precedents I can think of. Your analogy was not good, and I'm pushed to think of one that is, simply because at the back of many historic so-called moral dilemmas or disputes wasn't an issue of morality but the fact of threatened financial interests or territorial ambitions. The war you mention would probably never have been fought had the issue simply been one of whether white was superior to black. In 1976 I sat listening to an Afrikaans gentleman in the early hours of the morning on a train from Jo'burg to Nelspruit. I have to admit I was astounded by his aggressive certainties about the respective positions of white and black in the "natural order", but nevertheless I still think that the driving force (i.e. the force that kept it alive even when most people knew it was wrong) behind apartheid was economic. Therein lies a difference, perhaps you will suggest otherwise, but this is not the case as far as I can see in the abortion debate; it seems to me about as purely moral a discussion as you might get; there is no financial driver inducing people, as you put it, "not to admit" the wrongness of abortion. For reasons you will be well aware of, the issue of whether a woman can be compelled by a state to sacrifice her happiness, health and possibly even her life for an unborn foetus is in my view possessed of a complexity which I suspect will stand the test of time. In general though I would agree with you when you say that a society's division over an issue at one point in time doesn't necessarily mean that society at a different point in time will be divided over it, or that the issue will be regarded as "complex". But so what? What you are really pointing out to me is that society at one point in time can later be proved be "wrong" in its view by society at a different point. Pretty indisputable, provided you accept that there is a high degree of social subjectivity in that statement, but it doesn't really affect the way I think about this particular issue. What matters to me is that there IS division and uncertainty right now, and, taken in conjunction with my comments in the previous paragraphs I think it's reasonable to draw the inference that an inflexible yes or no to abortion would be irresponsible. We really don't know what society will say a hundred years hence. I somehow doubt it, but just maybe in the future people will look back and say: what the heck were they doing aborting a foetus just to save a woman from years of mental torment? Like I've hinted before I'm certainly not either rabidly pro-life or determinedly pro-choice. I think that to adopt either of those positions in an inflexible way is to demean the whole issue. Personally, as I've said, I'm inclined to go with a default law of legality. But that doesn't imply a carte blanche to sleep around every night and then visit the clinic. I have, for instance, a lot of sympathy with those people who would make abortion illegal and then seek to allow exceptions. It's the people who, for various incomprehensible (to me) "moral" reasons, take up the extremes on both sides I have a problem with. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
For the pro-abortion folks, try this simple test: tonight, look your daughter or son in the eye, look at their life shining back at you, and think, in a moment of weakness, what would have happened had you decided to terminate their chance at life? Looking backward how could ANYONE say they would have chosen an abortion? (in which case, your son or daughter would not be here. Can you live with that possibility?) |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Flippant answer: "What-ifs" are irrelevant. If the eyes never existed to look into, you'd never know what you were missing. Serious answer: Yes possibly, if, for instance, the alternative was a mentally ill, or physically ill, or dead, mother. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sure, Moonbeam, slavery was an economic issue. On the one hand, there were people who didn't think human beings should be owned. There were other people, on the other hand, whose way of life and livelihood depended on owning human beings. In between the extremes, you had people who didn't rely on slavery but were nonetheless convinced Southern plantation owners deserved a right to make a living. However, whether a person wanted to feel good about themselves or placate a Europe already condemning American slavery or increase their economic fortunes or just protect the price of cotton -- every stance was ultimately self-serving. The abortion issue may not be economic, Moonbeam, but it is certainly no less self-serving than that of slavery. Humanity is ultimately driven by far more than just simple economics, after all. We don't make it illegal to kill two-year-olds because it's going to make us money or because it will prevent someone else from making money. In my opinion, we don't even do it because it's "the right thing to do." We try to protect ALL two-year-olds because we recognize it's the best way to protect OUR two-year-olds. The role of society, I think, is to help protect people from other people. That's not a moral issue, except perhaps to those who keep trying to make it one. It's a pragmatic issue. When a society fails to protect the weakest from the stronger, ultimately everyone is put at risk. Because there's always someone stronger. Again, that's not morality. It's survival. quote: That's a strong emotional argument, threadbear. I hope you realize it applies equally well to birth control? It even applies to abstinence? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Does it really apply to birth control and abstinence Ron? Humm, in both of those instances, on the assumption that the control actually prevents the sperm arriving at the egg, the "life" never began. I suspect that threadbear was working on the principle that you can't mourn something that never existed physically. Which of course is highly debatable, as many childless couples will no doubt confirm, but perhaps casts doubt on your use of the phrase "equally well". More on the rest later. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
You said, Ron: "That's a strong emotional argument, threadbear. I hope you realize it applies equally well to birth control? It even applies to abstinence?" Well, not exactly. Abortion gets rids of a physical entity that IS a child, not a concept. It lives, it breathes, it eats. It fits the definition of alive. Don't mean to be too flip here, but I'm not worried too much about mass-murderering a few million sperm(s). And why are people so eager to defend abortion by putting the child in the same context as an unwanted weed and thereby fix the problem by just: pull it? As far as your argument, Moonbeam, unfortunately the incidences only happen in a rare 1-2% (within the United States of course- in other nations, illegal abortions harm thousands of mothers) of ALL abortion cases. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: do we really want a law that disregards God's law of life terminations simply to benefit the 1-2% of the public? Make THAT the law: that abortions are granted ONLY in specific circumstances. Genocide is the systematic extermination of a certain group of people: in this case that certain group of people are babies. The proof of the pudding is this: have you ever asked anyone if they've ever had an abortion? They won't tell you. They're embarassed, they feel guilty, and most adults later on in life regret what they have done. Worldwide, YEARLY, yes, I said yearly: there are between 36 and 53 MILLION abortions performed a year. That's like slaughtering the city of Chicago 17 times over. In my humble opinion, I think abortion is the single most inhuman, most atrocious act that modern man has justified thru moral relativism. Some folks don't even see it as amoral. God help them. seriously. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ahh. FINALLY, someone gets to the real issue. In my opinion, the only issue. In every one of my posts, both to Moonbeam and earlier to Jim, was the unspoken assumption of life at conception. Until that assumption is questioned, every pro-choice argument will lead only to paradox. So long as that assumption is embraced, either wittingly or unwittingly, the only options are to protect life, not protect life, or choose and pick which lives you think are worth protecting. In my opinion, that leads to arguments no one can ever hope to win. quote: Whose definite, threadbear? Yours? What differentiates a fertilized egg from an unfertilized egg? Or from the millions of sperm you are so willing to kill? Saying something doesn't make it true. Let's get specific. quote: You mean like eating meat on Friday? We don't live in a theocracy, theadbear. God's law has to be between the individual and their god and, frankly, it's up to their god to enforce his laws if he wants. It's not up to me to enforce them for him. The alternative, of course, is that you don't get to worship your god any more. You have to worship the god of America, of the people who make the laws. There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing for a law you believe necessary. Please, though, don't try to blame it on God? quote: So, if I find a person who will tell me they had an abortion, then you'll agree it's okay? One of the funniest movie lines I've heard in a long time was in the recent Iron Man. When Pepper walks in on Tony Stark trying to remove his suit of armor, he hesitates a minute and then says something to the effect, "Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing." Neither guilt nor embarrassment makes something inherently wrong. If it did, we'd all be in trouble. Not incidentally, returning to an earlier point, I had a vasectomy when I was about 25. Trust me, people can regret birth control, too. People can regret anything, I think, that can't easily be undone. I don't think that necessarily makes something wrong. Just, well, regrettable. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: As I said, I have some sympathy with that position. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, you are making this too easy for me: God/Bible actually condones the killing of animals for food, but not people. Your implication is that they are one and the same. The conventional scientific definition of Life is the following: Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena: Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms A fetus exhibits all of the above except for Reproduction. None of the above are considered universal definitions by any means, but they consititute the basis on which science determines life. A newborn calf is 'life', but it can't reproduce...yet, either. I caution you, from an offensive standpoint, to being so careless to suggest that 'the g*d of America' is someone we bow to. There is no one 'g*d' of America, and I personally would never use such an offensive paraphrase. You obviously believe in idolatry, then, if you believe there exists a 'g*d of America.' Man's, that's distasteful even for me to write. You said: "you HAVE to worship the 'g*d of America." The hell you say! I have only one God that I worship, and I bestow worship upon NO man or position. You just dropped the equivalent of an 'N' bomb on my faith, and I'm sure that's not what you intended. (at least, I hope so....) I have a firm belief that 1) we all have consciences. 2) our conscience is God speaking to us 3) ignoring our conscience causes regret Science can't explain the existance of a conscience, or even how the spark of life exists, therefore an outside force of energy animates our watertight suit. Your argument about how regret, in this instance, is neither right or wrong, further underscores my point: that abortion is made palatable by moral relativism. In other words, by ignorning one's conscience, it is easy thru moral relativism, to justify even the aborhent act of abortion. When my kids grew up, they asked me once: Dad, how do I know if something is good or evil, or right or wrong? I answered simply: "follow your conscience first, and don't make excuses for not listening to it,later" Ron, I am going to give you the last word, it is, after all, your forum! and I must get some work done. I'm retired at the ripe age of 51, but run my own business at my leisure. In any case, I am grateful for the opportunity to voice concerns in previous posts. I hope I have given you all some food for thought; pointed out some important items for further study. Yours, ShadowRider/threadbear Jeff (i forgot my old password and had to create a new ID.) |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Lol. Sorry Ron, I was labouring under the impression that that was a given, all I've been doing from the start is arguing that a fixed position of "kill" or "not kill" is not sustainable/compassionate/sensible/rational, whatever! (All emanating from the "against god's will argument"). Of course I think the assumption of "life" HAS to be embraced (given the inadequate state of our scientific knowledge), and of course if you go on to adopt an inflexible "kill" policy (what you call pro-choice) then, sure, paradox is the result. That's so obvious it's not really worth debating . Which leads me right back to the part where we were discussing "value" and I admitted that effectively by allowing a "kill" option in some instances, you would be attributing varying values to life; but then by NOT allowing the kill option you might also be said to be making value judgements. But to be specific, sure, you are indeed picking a life. I don't think anyone can particular "win" the abortion debate. I'd just try to neutralise the two extreme views, and then discourage abortion wherever possible, while providing as much intimately tailored support/advice as the system would allow on a case by case basis. On your earlier post: quote: Ok, just so I don't get confused we've (you've) switched the focus a bit now, to the question of whether the abortion issue bears hallmarks that are significantly different from the slavery issue, apartheid and, let's add, hunting for enjoyment (just because I want to), also it seems, to the question of the role of society. Did I mention the "role of society"? I must be crazy ... No, I thought not, I didn't. But let's see. Does society have a "role"? Does it HAVE to have a role by reason of its existence? Margaret Thatcher would go further: society doesn't exist. Is it THE duty of society, if it exists, to protect an unborn foetus from its mother? Or its duty to protect the mother from the father and parents? Or to protect the mother from the psychological pressure exerted by the foetus? Or to protect her from herself? Society: little more than an "aggregation of people" these days I'd say; possibly you could define it more mechanistically by reference to legal or political boundaries but social and cultural distinctions are becoming difficult imo. And yes I think you're probably right. I always remember a film called The Phoenix, or something like that, where a group of guys were marooned in the desert after a plane crash. It kind of illustrates the idea of the "group" as an entity laying down parameters to protect individuals from each other and indeed from themselves. I think perhaps the model gets highly complicated, perhaps even impaired to the point of irrelevance, in a world where power is very unevenly distributed and where leadership and paternalism introduce further "imperfections". You might say I suppose that society in the act of trying to perform its role surrenders its ability to perform its role. Which is why I suppose I feel that your point is academically right, but not of particular interest to a pragmatist (which I am probably not!). I also have some sympathy with Thatcher's view, although I suspect she was thinking more of that enduring human quality you mentioned earlier in your post - selfishness - when she postulated the non-existence of society. Which segues me neatly into: The self-serving argument (I'm sure it's been done to death in 101): ultimately every single human action is driven by self interest. As a result of which you can tie any number of scenarios together with the broad sticking plaster of selfishness. I don't think its all that helpful to say that abortion and slavery are similar because they are both self serving. I might just as well say that cutting my sandwiches for lunch and cutting the local bank vault open are similar because they are self-serving. I think you have to accept the broad underlying truth about humanity, and then look at degrees and the qualities of and reasons for that self-serving action. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Your post is an intriguing mix of Dawkins and the Divine threadbear! But, how aren't mammals the same as humans? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Where did I mention animals, threadbear? quote: That isn't what I asked. I asked how does a fertilized egg differ from a spermatozoa or ooctye? Just about every living cell of your body exhibits most of those characteristics, too. And, indeed, just about every living cell of your body has the potential to be a human being. Why do you feel more strongly about one group of cells over any other similar groups of cells? They're all alive. quote: I apologize if that offended you, threadbear, but I think you took it a bit out of context. I didn't claim there was a god of America; I said that was the alternative to freedom of religion. And that is the inevitable result of passing laws founded on nothing but religious contexts because, of course, someone has to privilege their religion over everyone else's for that to happen. quote: And I firmly believe in free will. I don't believe God speaks to anyone unless first invited to do so, else there would be very little free will remaining. I believe a man's conscience isn't just one thing, but rather a combination of many things, including childhood conditioning and empathy. I don't believe that a man who commits murder and has no remorse necessarily makes murder right. But here's the thing, threadbear: what either one of us believes about God or the human condition does very little to prove anything. It's interesting, and I think it's healthy to exchange and compare such opinions, but ultimately faith is only convincing to someone already sharing similar faith. quote: And yet that's exactly what we have in just about every other human context, Moonbeam. Fixed positions are what we call laws. That's not to say flexibility and mercy don't exist in our system, because they obviously do. But we still need the fixed positions. quote: Are you suggesting that ignorance is then sufficient reason to err on the side of caution? At some point, Moonbeam, you have to draw a line in the sand. If we keep pushing that line back because of scientific uncertainty, there isn't a single human cell that shouldn't be protected. Your barber is going to end up in a whole lot of trouble! quote: Nor did I intend to do so, Moonbeam. Any more, I'm sure, than you intended to argue earlier that they were markedly dissimilar because one is self-serving in a different way than the other? (We'll save the role of society for another thread, perhaps?) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Once again with the abortion discussion. Well, why not? I would like to meet one of these pro-abortion people some day. I personally have never met one. I think they are an invention of people who don't believe that women should have a right to choose. I think that the very term is an insult. It suggests that there are packs of wild murderers roaming the streets looking for people to murder, and if they cannot convince one person to murder a fetus, they will settle for forcing another to do so. This latest turn in the debate, spreading the smear of pro-choice folks to two year olds, seems in the usual spirit. Now the suggestion seems to be that there are packs of wild liberals roaming the streets—as though nobody but a liberal would make the choice of having her pregnancy terminated in a safe and legal way—demanding that people make the choice of killing two year olds. Considering that this is the age many child development experts have called "the terrible twos" for its oppositional behavior, I can see why anti-choice fantasies might settle on this particular age group. Nevertheless, I notice that the argument seems to be put forward by anti-choice people. Why would antichoice people want to kill off two year olds? And why then would they wish to attribute their somewhat unsettling fantasy lives to people whose position is limited to suggesting that women be allowed the right to make their own choices here? This puzzles me. And Threadbear, with all due respect to your position about conscience, I must say it is one I wish I could share. Having spent time working with folks with sociopathy, I think you are being unduly sunny. I asked one guy about the seven teeth I found in a manilla envelope on his person. It turned out he had pulled them from the body of a woman he had murdered. His comment was that she had been a friend and that she had given him the teeth as a present. He was wondering when he could get permission to wander the grounds again, and couldn't understand why I was against it. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Uh, Bob? I think you were the first to use the term? Nobody here has been talking about pro-abortion people. quote: Right. And the guy with the seven teeth in his pocket, Bob? Was he allowed to make his own choices, too? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Well since you've all opted to continue to discuss abortion ... Ron: quote: Most except its own unique set of diploid DNA which marks it as a separate human organism, no longer just a specialized haploid cell of the parent. You are shrugging off the insight of embryology. The word "Zygote" comes from a word which means to "yoke". Your argument is about as sound as saying there's no difference between a married woman and a single. You could pursue her anyway, but something would have to be undone that has already been done. Likewise with conception something profound has happened that you are slurring over with the greatest of ease. It doesn't change the facts. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Good to see you, Stephen! I didn't see anything in the list threadbear provided about unique DNA being a qualification for life? There's a whole lot of Doublemint twins who are going to be very disappointed to learn their identical DNA doesn't provide them protection under the law. We've already cloned mice, sheep, and chimpanzees, Stephen. The technology to clone a human being already exists and will eventually be (if it hasn't already been) used. Does a cloned human child deserve protection under the law? Even though her non-unique DNA originated from one of those specialized haploid cells? If so, how long before we need to protect those haploid cells? Watch where you spit now. I saw a fascinating show on PBS last week about the role of sex in evolution. Balladeer can jump in here, perhaps, and correct me if I get this wrong, but it seems the female cockroach typically has intercourse exactly once in her entire life. That's all she needs, apparently, because she stores the sperm from that one incident inside her body and uses it to fertilize her eggs at will. That's why bringing home just one cockroach in a paper bag can result in an infestation. She's pretty much always pregnant. Humans are wired a little differently, of course, but I think the female cockroach is nonetheless a testament to the potential of as yet unpaired gametes. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Are you suggesting that folks who don't agree with your opinion on the restriction of choice are psychopaths, Ron? I know somebody who would object to comments made about posters, and not their opinions; and very strenuously too. Except here. I think you should delete your own post. Mischievously yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, The word "Yoga" also comes from the Sanskrit for "yoke." It means in this case the discipline that frees. I find the connection somewhat more to the point. Exactly what was the point you were trying to make there about zygotes anyway? I didn't follow. I do believe something important happened with conception. I don't wish to make light of that. My sense of meaning is more invested in the birth process. I wish you wouldn't try to tell me that my sense of meaningfulness is wrong by fiat. I respect your sense of things, and the sense of loss that people have when they lose a baby before it comes to term. But I do happen to believe that the sense of coming to term does have some meaning. I know it does for me, and I know it does for many other people. I believe it is disrespectful of the anguish that many go through in reaching these decisions to throw stigma upon them, and to attempt to use shame as a method of argumentation. It seems to be contrary the values of the religion that I understand christianity to be to proceed in this way. I suppose I am not the guy to make such an observation, but this is the way the situation strikes me. Anyway, it's a passing observation. Best to you and your fine folks, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Oops I missed this before Ron (just edited it in). We're into semantics at long last. We both agree on this - I extrapolate that from your reply to threadbear. Laws aren't necessarily fixed, in the sense I mean fixed, at all. My particular branch of law is Landlord and Tenant law in the UK where statute is often framed around if/then statements, as for that matter is some abortion law: "if the foetus is less than xx weeks, then permissible" for example. If it were possible to work up legislation to deal with every circumstance in abortion then that could be enshrined in statute; that would be fixed by your definition but not by mine! Anyway, before all that, by fixed position I simply meant the thought behind the law, not the law itself. Are you deliberately trying to prolong this! Anyway, if, as you say, you don't want to base laws upon religious convictions (as you said to threadbear) what would you base them upon? Also missed this: quote: Yes. (It's kinda like the opposite of what I do when I see someone ask a leading question with a bear trap behind it. I just answer "yes" for the fun of it. But please don't hit me over the head with Churchill or some such.)quote: Absolutely right Ron (although it occurs to me that 500 years hence people may condemn us for murdering hair, let's just hope they haven't also invented temporal travel - well I guess they clearly haven't or we be in some futuristic court by now on a charge of "follicle abuse", anyway I digress), there has to be a line. All I've been arguing for is not a fixed one. A line which wavers with circumstances. There ya go. Why didn't I say that 5 days ago. Good decision on the "society" debate! I need to write a poem or two. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (10-10-2008 11:56 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Didn't say that either, Bob. I was clearly asking about a guy with seven teeth in his pocket. Is he posting here? You did manage to sidestep the question very nicely, though. quote: In very large part, Moonbeam, on the precept of protecting people from other people. Not from themselves, and not from God. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I'm having some trouble posting this reply. Last attempt the program ate it. I'm trying again. quote: threadbear uses the word in post #86. It was his use of the word that I was speaking to. Your debating technique was so authoritative that I almost didn't check, but there it was. And then there was this interesting exchange. I begin here by noting that the business of murdering two year olds is the fantasy of those whole are against women making choices on carrying their pregnancies to term. I suggest that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult enough. The notion of murdering a two year old, already born, with a history, relationships, memories, the personhood acquired after birth is not a fantasy I could have dreamed up. It takes somebody with a very violent set of fantasies to dream this up. I am uncomfortable not so much with the fantasies, but with the imputation of those fantasies without evidence to other people and the denial of ownership of those fantasies for themselves. I ask about this in the quote below: quote: I have actually asked a question here. In Ron's reply, quoted below, we can see his use of the word "Right." indicates he has heard. And we can see by the two questions on another topic following right afterwards that he has choses not to answer the question. He treats it as rhetorical when it is not. quote: Ignoring the fact that Ron has not answered my question, it becomes a matter of some interest to look at the two questions he does ask. Ron will later give me some grief for not answering these questions, so the nature of the questions seems important to me here. The question under discussion is, from my point of view, why should we not accept a woman's right to choose whether she will carry a child to the legally accepted limit of her period of choice. I believe that given other things are functional, it should be her right to make that choice. While Ron may have stated his position with clarity at some point, I confess I haven't seen it. From his various statements, it appears that he has some disagreement with my thinking on this matter, and that his own thinking is not in agreement with his own usually more Libertarian views in this regard. I don't feel that Ron has to be consistent. I will try not to force such a position. People are not slaves to logic; logic is an aid in clear thinking, not a substitute for it. I will try to use logic as a tool here, however, when we look at Ron's questions again: quote: Ron here is suggesting that if he can prove that Mel was merely exercising his right to choice, he can prove that the right to choice in general is as crazy as Mel. This depends upon Ron's ability to blur the distinction between Mel and a woman making a choice to have or not have an abortion. If I am incorrect in this conclusion, I am sorry in advance. Actually, rather than attempting to go ahead without checking, I'll simply ask Ron if this is in fact what he's trying to do. No point in talking to a fictional Ron when a real one may be willing to talk, is there? And let me try to answer Ron's question. Perhaps Ron might also take a shot at answering mine as well. I did everything I could to make sure his choices were limited, Ron. I opposed his being sent to a unit with more freedom and more access to the outside world because it was clear to me that he was only barely able to control himself under the restrictions he was under on a locked ward. Once he arrived there I made sure his things were searched on a daily basis for dangerous materials. The administration was dead set as a matter of policy to get this man discharged. He was the advance wave for the new deinstitutionalization program, and a poster boy for getting government out of the mental hospital business. I did not succeed. I believed he had the right to make his own decisions, and I still do. I also believed I had the right to do what I could to make my choices about the safety of the people I cared about and, yes, even his safety as well. I wish I could tell you that this was easy; in general it wasn't, but with Mel, you had to be an idiot or a flunky not to see what was happening. In the end, I think it cost me my job to get him out of there. Or maybe it was just a self-destructive streak in me, and it was time to be moving on anyway, and I was injured, and I was going back to school and the sky was falling. Mostly the sky was falling, probably. Mel, though, was nuts. He'd been nuts for 40 years, and every time somebody had tried to release him previously, he'd displayed that for everybody to see. He'd spent the previous time confined in a hospital for folks who were both dangerous and crazy. Folks who are dangerous are less frequent proportionally than they are among so called normal folks. Normal folks are much more violent as a rule. Of course I suppose that depends on how you portion out the various psychopaths, as criminals or as patients or as both. Mel was an exceptional guy. I don't think the responsibility here was entirely Mel's. I would take some of it myself. I would also fasten a solid amount of it around the neck of the then Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, whose policy it was. Having gotten an answer, what would you like to do with it? Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Doesn’t that raise some issues Ron? I think society, via laws, definitely should protect people from themselves in certain circumstances, allowing for instance, authorities to intervene to protect the individual from acts of unnecessary self harm. I also think that laws are necessary to separate church and state - to protect individuals against the enforced influence of any single religion - to protect the people from any single god. Though as I don’t believe in god I have to admit that this, at least to me, is protecting people from other people’s religious beliefs. Protecting the people from other people? As far as abortion goes doesn’t that just move the question to “when is a foetus a person?” . I answered your question in the other thread “when is a foetus alive” by suggesting that it could be judged on when the foetus had the ability to live independent of the mother, with or without medical intervention. I think that a similar answer can be applied to when a person becomes a person, surely the defining quality of personhood in foetuses is the ability to exist as a person independent of the mother, with or without medical intervention. I believe that you can only kill a person who is both alive and a person. I’m against abortion after the point of viability, the point where a foetus has the ability to live independent of the mother. Before that point all you’re killing is the potential of a living person, it’s no different from denying the potential for life through contraception. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Heavens Grinch, now you've really stepped into it, lol. When it can live independently, wow! Kudos for a firm position though. I'm intrigued by the idea of laws to protect one from God Ron (I love how that juxtaposition could be reversed, heh). I need to think about that a little more. And Bob, I think the whole 2 year old thing started with Ron simply trying to steer the debate towards what he regards as a central issue: "when does life begin?" - a question I regard as pointless to any debate about abortion and therefore studiously avoided discussing! I'm quite sure Ron wasn't fantasising - not at that point anyway. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Grinch, I apologize for the following graphic thoughts, but nothing about this subject is for the squeamish. Whether you agree or not, for close to 50% of the people in the United States, abortion is infanticide! On a 10 scale of heinous crimes, infanticide has to be a '10.' That is why these 50% are so upset that pro-abortion people use 'oh, it's just this or that' labeling logic on what the baby/or item (or if you prefer) is. They throw out terms like 'viable' as if that excuses the behavior. Sorry, I'm not buying it. To me that analogy is like someone having bad behaviors, slapping a 'disease' label on it, then claiming they are not responsible for the occurences. You wrote: ------------------------------------------ I believe that you can only kill a person who is both alive and a person. I’m against abortion after the point of viability, the point where a foetus has the ability to live independent of the mother. Before that point all you’re killing is the potential of a living person, it’s no different from denying the potential for life through contraception. ------------------------------------------ So you are saying, post-abortion, that if you laid, side by side: - your used 'contraception' device - and the 3 month fetus, (3-4 inches long, with head, hands, legs, eyes, mouth) that they are 'NO DIFFERENT' to you?! I am SPEECHLESS! |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ~Excuse me while I yawn.~ All of which goes to illustrate exactly why it's pointless to discuss that aspect of this issue. And you didn't answer my question about the difference between mammals and humans threadbear. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Sorry, Moonbeam, and Grinch, I didn't mean to be rude. I just know if I saw both of those, that the tears wouldn't stop. Anyway, I'm a bit confused about your question: what is the difference between mammals and humans..... in what regard? As far as viability, or... or .... Help me out here! *smile* I hadn't intended to post in this thread anymore, but Grinch really took my breath away and I know I stepped on my bottom lip. T.Bear |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
It's ok, you weren't rude at all threadbear. I just don't see the point of discussing the point.Earlier in the thread you said to Ron: "God/Bible actually condones the killing of animals for food, but not people. Your implication is that they are one and the same." I maybe misunderstood, but I thought you sounded offended by the implication that animals and humans are alike? And that you were saying that animals are different to humans which is why God condones killing them. I was just wondering in what way you think animals are different? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey, Moonbeam. No, I thought Ron was making the point that 'killing' is killing, and the 'eat no meat on Friday' meant that. Turns out, that's not what he meant at all and he clarified it for me, no problem. He was talking about making mandatory laws for everyone, based upon some people's religious beliefs. Anyway, I'm done with this thread, being the bear that I am. You're right. There's really no point. ~nodding~ Take care, and keep a 'stiff upper lip' (unlike mine! LOL) T.Bear |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bob, if you want a serious answer you have to ask a serious question. Your phrasing is no less loaded that the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. I don't know anyone with unsettling fantasy lives. I don't know anyone whose position is limited. And I certainly don't know anyone suggesting that women be allowed the right to make their own choice here. I'm guessing you meant something else in that last part? Ask a question that doesn't presuppose the answer, Bob, and I'll be happy to answer directly. quote: You haven't missed it. quote: I don't try to structure my views according to someone else's labels, Bob, if that's indeed what you mean. quote: I wouldn't use the word crazy, Bob. I'm not interested in Mel's sanity, after all, but rather the way his choices impact other people. Especially the woman missing the teeth? Who, some might say, has a lot in common with the child not allowed to come to term. The point, Bob, is that you can't legitimately argue for a person's right to choose. Not without giving it a context, because realistically we limit people's right all the time. If Mel makes the choice to murder a woman and yank out her teeth, we're going to try to stop him. That's a choice within a context. You can argue whether it's right or wrong, but you can't argue that Mel gets to make and act on any choice he wants. At least, not if you want your argument to be taken seriously. quote: Exactly so, Grinch. quote: At least that's a target, Grinch, albeit a potentially moving one. It's a common opinion, too, indeed, the prevailing opinion it would seem. But have you really laid any foundation for why it should be more than an opinion? More on that in moment. quote: See, that moment didn't take lone. Why is viability from the mother "the" dividing point? I agree we have to draw that line in the sand, but why pick one that depends solely on medical technology? This particular line in the sand essentially says that a group of cells is only a potential one day but becomes a living person twenty-four hours later. Isn't that a little hard to justify? What if our line in the sand was, instead, the point at which brain cells begin forming permanent connections? Isn't it the brain, after all, that physically differentiates us from animals? At what point does a child's neural connections begin to form? quote: I get the impression, threadbear, that you feel people aren't taking the potential life of a fetus seriously enough. And that's a valid point, I think. It might be constructive, however, to honestly ask yourself whether you're taking the consequences of contraception seriously enough? To many, many people the latter is every bit as damning as the former. Why should we believe they're wrong and you're right? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: “I have no control over the beliefs of other people beyond ensuring that I don’t accept them without question or disregard them without reason.” Craig Walker - 2008 quote: Luckily I’m not selling it - I’m offering it up for discussion, for free, as my personal opinion. quote: No, I’m saying that a foetus up to ten weeks has the same potentiality or ability to live as an independent entity (a person) as a sperm or an ovum. Namely zero. I believe that your earlier list defining the criteria for apportioning the label “life” is missing one important characteristic - the ability to live. quote: I’m Craig - pleased to meet you. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Potential is another argument Ron. Zygotes are not potential human organisms, but actual. Gametes are specialized cells of the parent. And twins still have diploid DNA. Likeness or difference from each other is not the crux of the question ... a profound difference from parental reproductive cells is. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Threadbear's comment about the percentage of folks who believe that abortion is infanticide is another one of the many points about this discussion that puzzles me. My copy of The Oxford American Dictionary defines infanticide as "murder of an infant soon after its birth." The population in majority or as a whole is capable of believing many things that are not true or have a debatable validity. Reality is to some extend determined by social consensus according to Peter Berger and other interesting sociologists and philosophers, but I don't believe they meant that reality is socially determined in quite this way. Am I wrong in understanding that more people believe in the reality of angels than in the theory of Evolution? Simply because a majority believes something to be true says nothing about the actual reality of the belief. Society believes different things at different times, after all. This is a faulty argument; and, when looked at against the actual nature of the question, one that is ill-formed. What you would probably want to ask is the question, Is abortion murder? Then you might be able to offer your statistics with some hope of validity—not that abortion is in fact murder, only that this is the proportion of folks who believe it to be so. Since the fetuses in question, not having been born yet, are by definition not infants, the question is ill-formed and invalid. It merely says that this is a proportion of the population who don't understand the definition of the word, or whose passions have so swayed them that they aren't offering a thoughtful response. And, specifically for Ron, I'd like to point out another instance of the usage of the word "pro-abortion." Threadbear, I am pro-choice. Do you confuse me with somebody who loves abortions and encourages people to have extra and gratuitous abortions, over and above what they believe they need? If that is the case, you should understand your notion is not correct. I neither encourage nor discourage abortions, I encourage thoughtful and loving choices in pretty much the way I do with other sorts of psychotherapy decisions, from within the client's heart. Not doing work in California now because I am not licensed here, doesn't mean my philosophy of doing therapy has suddenly shifted. I can see you are authentically disturbed by the issue, by the way, and that it all gives you real pain. I admire your authenticity about this. I sometimes think the issue has a lot to do with how a woman feels about herself, about how she feels about bringing a life into the world, into this world specifically, and into her place in this specific world. I think that there is also a question about how she feels about her primary relationship at the time and how she feels about this particular child. When we talk about abortion, I think in some ways, that oversimplifies the issue. Almost always when I've spoken with women about this sort of decision, the actual question of abortion or not abortion gets set aside fairly quickly in favor of discussion of these other issues, and the ultimate outcome of the actual abortion decision rests on the answers the woman can reach about these questions. That's on the basis of occasional conversations. If you could find it in your heart to talk with some abortion counselors without the pre-chosen agenda of trying to convince them of the error of their ways and instead with the agenda of understanding what it is in the lives of these women that brings them to the point of feeling the need to make such a decision in the first place, you might find new areas of understanding opening up for you. As long as the discussion is framed in terms of the good or evil of the medical procedure itself, I think the discussion is at a standstill. If indeed the discussion can be framed in terms of what brings women to the point of needing to make such decisions in the first place, then I think an empathic bridge can be built and the discussion can open up. My interest is in opening up the humanity of the discussion, and not solidifying folks in their positions. We're all too good at doing that for our own well being. My thoughts at this time, at least. Respectfully tendered. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's the question, Stephen, not the answer. I don't know any zygotes. Have never talked to one, have never had one talk to me. Yea, there's the potential there for someone I can know, someone with whom I can have a discussion, but as best I can tell that's all it is. Potential. The zygote is a building block, and mommy ain't through building yet. At any given moment, a gamete is just ten seconds from the same exact potential. And perhaps more to the point, with today's cloning technology, any of your diploid cells are potentially just nine months or so from being a brand new rug rat. Potential isn't just another argument, old friend. It's the argument. quote: I agree completely, Stephen. You're the one who used the word unique? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: That's a poor criteria Ron. There are droves who would doubtless fall under your umbrella of human protection whom you haven't talked to ... many of whom can and never will talk. You are conflating level of development with being. Embryology still asserts that a fetus is a distinct human organism. quote: You're only obfuscating this. For whether with cloning or gestation, it is what happens in that "ten seconds" that you are failing to address ... that which makes the difference between a parent's cell, and a new human organism. quote: Context, Ron, context. I used the word "unique" in regard to the fertilized egg being profoundly different than cells of the parent (in cloning or otherwise)... not in regard to every human being having different DNA from one another. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: It was what you already seemed to concede ... that a transformation has happened with fertilization that changes a parent's cell into a new organism. quote: How should a "sense of meaning" about conception negate or rule out a sense of meaning about the birth process or coming to term? It would, by its very nature, include and anticipate such meaning. How am I, in any way, telling you that your sense of meaningfulness is wrong? I would be more inclined to say it is incomplete rather than mistaken, if the humanity of the fetus is not recognized. quote: The exemplars of the pro-life position have no aim to "throw stigma" or impose shame as a method of argumentation. If you'll note what I've been arguing, it has been for the humanity of the fetus. There is no imposition of alien or hyper-religious morals upon anyone ... Rather the argument proceeds from moral principles already agreed upon, namely that innocent human life should not be killed. If you combine such with the insights of embryology and what we commonly know to be the course of things in pregnancy, conclusions can be drawn not thrown. Human rights is the concern and goal, not human shame. Shame (with all of us, I believe) is sometimes a byproduct of the tension that comes from seeing things right again ... and for that reason it need not be permanent. I have heard many accounts of women who have had remorse for their decision of abortion, only later to find peace, joy, and forgiveness. You may have a valid point about the method and attitude of some pro-life people. But moral reprobation is not unique to the pro-life position. I think I even detect a bit of chiding in your own voice whenever you start to protest taking away a women's choice. The disapproval factor is a given, when any path is seen as right. If making abortion illegal were taking away the real rights of a women, then your moral implications would be correct. If however, the fetus is a human being, which should be protected from any harm under the guise of 'rights' of somebody else, then moral implications arise there as well. Secondly, its not so much about shaming as informing. I truly believe that many have believed propaganda which asserts that the fetus is not a human being. And for that reason, to know otherwise, or to even doubt what is so glibly assured might save some from a choice they may regret. quote: Heaping shame or disapproval upon others for the sheer enjoyment, would indeed be contrary to the spirit of Christ. But do you really think moral reprobation (in all cases) is? The New Testament would challenge that idea. But if I can't convince you of that from the scriptures, then maybe from your own arguments? For from them, it seems obvious that you too can identify (in some measure) with the moral censure of the prophet. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing) quote: Bob, the push for making abortion illegal has to do with the desire to protect life. That in no way should rule out talking about options and looking for ways to help. Of course this discussion is often framed in such a way to make us believe that it is all about imposing law, and nothing about exploring live options for women ... or to say that the pro-life position can hold no compassion for needy mothers. I don't think that's true. There is much being done and discussed now, though surely much more can be done. My own family has benefited greatly from other options. We are the joyous parents of two Chinese "special needs" children who were 'floated in a basket', rather than aborted. Reasons and necessities abounded for their termination. And look what has happened. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: To quote our leader: "Ahh. FINALLY, someone gets to the real issue. In my opinion, the only issue." Good post Bob. quote: Yes Stephen, and the push for making abortion legal has to do with the desire to protect life. So what? Back to the pointless "what is life" debate again. Having "a life" is far more than just some theorising about sperms, eggs, zygotes and breath. The phrase "protecting lives" should embrace all entities involved in a particular abortion decision. Perhaps all we disagree about is the legal starting point. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
moonbeam, you are correct ... ALL entities should be considered. But the protection from the termination of life for one trumps making life easier for someone else. The abortion-rights position does not take into account the life of the unborn, and that is the fundamental problem with it. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I agree Stephen, the extreme postion of the abortion rights lobby is every bit as bad as the extreme position (often religion fuelled) of the anti abortion lobby. Neither position helps the potential "victims" in what is already a difficult enough situation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, what is extreme to you on the pro-life side? I'm curious, what is your position? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, quote: I don't know, Stephanos. I believe you do know that putting the statement the way you have is begging the question, and that the question needs to be better formed in order to be explored effectively by both sides. You should have some trouble expecting a pro-choice person to accept the terms of the discussion that you offer here. I don't fault you; I think that both side of the discussion tend to do the same thing in an effort to move the advantage of the discussion their way. Therein lies a major problem with the issue as a whole; everyone is so interested in winning the grand debate, that the sub-issues that comprise the main issue tend to go without address. We are interested in the goodness or badness of abortion itself. Women in the situation may feel this intensely, but the bulk of their time is often more practically spent in discussions about the relationships they're in, how they're being treated, will the guy be supportive, is there enough money, is there enough love in the home, and stuff like that. We all have solutions we'd like these women to adopt. I have answers for almost everybody, however, and I know from experience that my answers are not always the right answers or the best answers. A few posts back, I ran through a few of these questions that I thought might be useful in moving our conversation as a whole forward. These are questions that almost every woman that I've known who'se struggled with the issue of abortion has had to deal with from the moment serious discussions about the issue begins in counselling. Usually the decision to have or not to have an abortion hinges in my experience on how well these issues are addressed. I think any serious discussion about abortion ought to include them. Even people who disagree about abortion can discuss these issues and to the extent that they can be addressed in any particular situation, I think the actual liklihood of an abortion happening should be lessened. These are the issues around which I believe the decision to have or not to have an abortion frequently turns. If you want to have a successful intervention, this would probably be the place to effect it. And you would probably have a significant number of allies who you are now finding in the position of fighting you. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephen, for example, a position based exclusively upon the 6th commandment (or any other biblical text) which would prevent a woman having an abortion in nearly all circumstances. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I always assumed, I guess incorrectly, that those who were pro-choice did not believe that what they were terminating was a 'life'. Terminating a life is killing, in my book, regardless of the 6th commandment. What is it called in your book, Moonbeam? And what gives anyone the right to have the choice to kill another? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, The Pro-life position is not "based" upon the 6th commandment in any special way. It's not as if the Pro-Life side and the Abortion-rights side are in disagreement about whether or not innocent human life should be terminated. They are already in agreement on this moral principle. So though some pro-life-advocates use the 6th Commandment to argue that point, I don't think that's where the disagreement lies. I think the Pro-life position has to do more with the assertion that a fetus is indeed a human life. And being so, it makes perfect sense that the use of abortion should be either totally eliminated or greatly limited. I myself (for example) am not against it if it is in order to save the Mother's life. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I didn't say it was. You asked me for an extreme position, I gave you one. quote: Good. I'd go a bit further than you towards the "mother's position", and also I disagree that the best starting point is illegality. But I've already set out my position in detail in the previous posts. All I'd add is that these "labels" (pro this pro that) are not helpful imo, I, for instance am quite happy to accept a foetus maybe a human life (unlike the mainstream pro-choicers if I understand you correctly), simply because I don't think anyone really knows one way or the other. I'm equally prepared to face up to the realities of the horrible dilemmas that arise and accept that termination of that life may sometimes be the lesser of two evils, and that sometimes it won't be. quote: Killing Denise. quote: The right (instinct) of self preservation/self defence, Denise. The same right in fact that allowed you to pump all those bullets into the guy who was about to murder your kids way up there in this thread, and also the same instinct that allowed you to kill 100 tourists instead of just your daughter. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yeah, I guess those unborn babies are quite the dangerous group requiring self-defense measures taken against them. It seems to me they are the ones who need to be able to take self-protective measures. And in your scenario about the 100 tourists, I didn't actively kill them. I chose not to throw a switch that would have saved them, but would have killed my daughter. Throwing the switch would have been actively killing my daughter. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Denise, as long as you see the foetus as the only helpless victim we're not going to find much common ground. quote: So, can I take it that if the empty train had been on your daughter's line you would have allowed it to kill her and let the tourists live? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: If to not kill innocent human life is a moral imperative of both Pro-life advocates and Abortion-rights advocates, then how is it an "extreme position"? Remember, I only said that the Pro-life position isn't based upon the 6th Commandment because the self-same moral imperative is already accepted by the non-religious as well. Hardly "extreme", those you describe could at worst be charged with redundancy or superfluous argumentation. If their polemic is that people should revere God and worship him, it is a reasonable one, (and one that fits best with the moral standards of all sides of the debate) ... but it is technically different than the pro-life position. Moonbeam: quote: Lets say you did accept the humanity of the fetus, and still felt that killing the unborn human-being should be justified in some cases (beyond those in which the Mother's physical life is in jeopardy) ... isn't this more the extreme position? But rather than just accuse you of extremism, I would rather ask you this question ... What moral principle would trump the right of an innocent human being to live? Would the right to personal choice of an already living mother trump the basic right of another human being to live and not be killed? Would her right to pursuit happiness or procure for herself as much financial relief as possible supercede the right to life of another person? Would her right to lawfully eliminate as much pain as possible from her life, supplant the right to life of another human being? Do you think it should not be against the law to steal, simply because people who steal are sometimes very hungry? It seems the scenario you've given to Denise is hardly fitting, since most abortions do not have to do with saving another's life. And the ones which do, we've already conceded as unhappily necessary. quote: I don't think you really disagree with me, since I never said that the "starting point" is illegality. Though I believe abortion should be illegal (simply to protect human life), that is only a part of a larger whole. And there are many lines of action, and attempts at reform going on concurrently to address the social problems you mention. Stephen |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There is the extremely rare case where the mother's life would be in danger if she continued the pregnancy. That is the only instance of self-preservation, in my opinion, where it would be morally acceptable to terminate. Can you add any other examples of when it would be self-defensive/self-protective to abort? Being young, poor, unmarried, emotionally upset by the concept of being responsible for raising a child, being prone to headaches/migranes, not wanting to risk losing your figure,not wanting "to be punished with a baby" for an indiscretion (per Obama), etc. are not. I don't know what I would do if the situation were reversed in your scenario. But if I threw the switch to save my daughter, actively causing the 100 to die because of my actions, I would deserve to answer for that action in a court of law. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Are they not indeed! Well that's your opinion Denise. I have my own opinion based upon 25 years of voluntary work in the UK CAB and what derives from that. I can add many many detailed examples, which however I do not propose to do in this forum. If you want to e-mail me I might be prepared to share some experiences. But if you come to the discussion with the attitude that killing foetuses is against the will of god, period, I don't really want to spend the time. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (10-13-2008 10:11 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Stephen I didn't say anything about "moral imperatives". I didn't use the phrases pro life or pro choice, and, as I keep hinting, (with no disrespect to you) people who use them are doing the serious debate a disservice imo. I'm really not interested in what you feel the typical "pro lifer" does or doesn't base his/her position on; in this context you have to remember that the world is larger than the US and over here the phrase is rarely used. All I said was that: "a position based exclusively upon the 6th commandment (or any other biblical text) which would prevent a woman having an abortion" would imo be extreme. It's really rather simple Stephen. I have sat in front of fathers, uncles, and churchgoing friends and listened while they delivered such religious based pronouncements on a pregnant girl. Such opinions exist. quote: I have thought that on many occasions, especially in the case of very early terminations and very young women. I feel completely at ease with nearly all the resolutions reached. So no I don't regard it as extreme at all. Rather the opposite actually, compassionate and caring. quote: I think you (as in me) have to be honest about this. There is no question that, having accepted that there is a possibility that a fertilized egg may be a human being in the first instant of conception, decisions made in abortion issues involve placing value on human life, usually on the basis that the less developed that life is the less valuable it is. There is an incredibly difficult and emotionally traumatic weighing to be done, which might for instance at one end of the scale be represented by a girl of 14, raped by her "boyfriend" and only a few weeks pregnant, and proceed to increasing degrees of difficulty from there. And my answer to your last question in that list is now no doubt evident: yes possibly it might. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So let’s say a male survives a partial birth abortion. And instead of putting him in a closet or a laundry room until he dies the abortionist puts a needle into that male’s head thereby completing the paid task of a dead thing at the end of the procedure. Is there another problem with that? After all, the first problem is it didn’t come out dead, (or something to that effect, I can’t find the quote). . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Imo there's a problem with all abortion. There's a problem with killing any entity. Life's a problem Huan. You muddle through and do your best in each circumstance as you find it according to your personal credo. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. The terms (like any) can of course be abused, but they can also be useful in discussions by clarifying one's position. For example "Abortion-rights" is a pretty accurate term to describe someone who feels that woman's right to choose overrides the protection of the less-than-human fetus. An avoidance of terms can sometimes be an avoidance of clarification. quote: So they believe killing innnocent human life to be morally wrong (as affirms the 6th Commandment). So do 99.99% of people who are for abortion rights. I'm asking you to explain why their position is extreme, not merely to restate that it is. quote: Since you said you would be open to the idea of the fetus being a human being, I asked you to imagine (for a moment) that it was certainly so ... Within the context of believing the fetus to be a human being, can you give me an example of abortion that would be "compassionate and caring"? (Remember that where the Mother's life is in Jeopardy I have already conceded that abortion may be morally justified). quote: Certainly the degree of attachment yields different emotional responses. But our present legal reprobation of infanticide operates on the principle that the less-developed 1 week old baby is just as "human" as a 20 year old adult. In fact many people (due to the defenselessness and innocence of the infant) would feel that ending the life of an infant to be worse than killing an adult. If development has no bearing here (in our present laws), why should it be any different concerning the fetus? quote: Okay you have given an example. My question is ... In other situations, would a woman's "right" to cope with the personal pain of rape, trump the right to life for another human being? Should a woman psychologically traumatized by rape, who feels she can't continue with her motherly responsibilities, be allowed to abandon or kill her already born 1 year old infant for that reason? If not, (as terrible as rape is) I don't think you have a valid argument to support the termination of an unborn human life either. Why? Because there is an ethical priority with the protection of human life, that takes precedence over measures to relieve the distress of traumatized woman. (Besides the whole idea that putting to death an unborn child conceived in rape would "make things better" is highly questionable anyway) Finally Moonbeam, I will say this. If you believe that such extreme situations might justify abortion, and yet that on-demand-abortions should be illegal, you share much in common with the typical pro-life position ... in fact if I understand you correctly, you are saying you are against most abortions since a very small percentage represent rape or the endangerment of the physical life of the mother. And though I would urge you to continue to question your own thoughts about the more "difficult" situations as well, I am glad for the common ground we already have. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I addressed some comments to you in post number 124. If you believe they're worth a comment, I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say. I think too little is made of women's right to choose when the word "right" is put into quotation marks, Stephanos, as though it were something debatable. As if it were a point of dogma that might be usefully contested in some forum like this one. I think that's the wrong assumption. Women have seemed to act as though abortion were a right whether it was criminalized or not over a very long period of time. To me that makes it a right because people have chosen to put their lives and their freedom on the line to claim it time and time again despite the attempts of others to take that right away from them. It is the sort of right that one exercises by being willing to make a choice and take whatever consequences come attached to it. Despite the number of times people seem to be willing to say "bad Girl!" and wiggle their fingers at them in disapproval or do some of the other less restrained things that people have done to women who've been willing to put it on the line in order to make this difficult decision a fact in the world, these women seem to have the stubborn sense that it really is their decision to make. It is their right to make it. And they will exercise that right. I haven't heard you say anything to address that. I told you in the response I mentioned above why I thought that the issue was not being dealt with by the folks who pretend that they can take that right away from women. Neither you nor any other folks on your side of the discussion has felt it important to deal with this stuff. Yet these personal reasons are the reasons that most women will end up making the decision to have an abortion. If a mustering of mass religious and moral disapproval were actually the way of addressing the problem, I suspect the problem wouldf have been addressed by now. I suggest to you that you don't want the problem dealt with, if in fact it is a problem. That the goal of the anti-choice movement is not to alter the situation, but to make it seem to have gone away for the sake of appearances and to leave the basic problems that cause the situation untouched. Women will not feel good about raising children in dangerous and loveless relationships. They do not feel comfortable raising children in situations of abject poverty without hope for their children. Women want to feel loved and supported in what they do in the world by their partners. Women can feel depressed and overwhelmed given adverse social or political conditions. Women have ambitions for themselves that do not always include being mothers. Excuse me, but until these issues are dealt with—at a minimum, until these issues are dealt with, and there will probably be others as well—abortion will continue to be an active alternative sought out by some women as a solution to the problems these situations bring up. If your commentary about the wrongness and sinfulness, or your questions about whether a fertus was a human being at the moment of conception actually addressed any of these issues, we would not need to be here talking about the subject. Even with the full majesty of the law behind it, your particular set of values was not sufficient or even close. Killing abortion providers certainly scares people, but it says more about how the anti-choice forces have missed the chance of actually dealing with the problems by means other than the attempt to impose terror on a reasonably subject population. This is not a pretty picture. I am unsurprised that when I bring the subject up, it is widely greated by loud shouts of silence from all directions. It's easier to keep the discussion away from what actually seem to be the primary concerns driving the needs for abortion in the first place. It is a failure on the part of much of the community to help women deal with these issues that helps create the issue in the first place. At least that's what I think. Are there any women who have opinions they'd like to share about the issue as well? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: And an attachment of labels can sometimes be an attempt to pigeon-hole issues which can't be usefully pigeon-holed. quote: No Stephen, you are using a Ron technique, writing the question you want me to answer for me! I don't know why I'm having to explain this because you are surely already cognisant of the position even though you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. The fact is that, however unsavoury it might sound to say it, there are different degrees of killing. People, for example, might broadly agree that murdering a 2 year old is rather more worthy of condemnation that shooting a murderer who is about to kill your daughter. Your attempt to simplify this down to a kill or not kill moral position, just as the attempt to simplify it to a pro or anti position, is not helpful to finding practical compassionate solutions to the problem. So in this case, with "extreme" meaning at one end of a spectrum, we have a guy sitting there saying: "this is a raped 14 year old girl, the foetus is only 6 weeks old, the girl is already descending into mental illness and on physically harmful drugs, but nevertheless she's still gonna have that baby because my god says that killing is wrong and I KNOW that that is a living breathing human being in there so it's gonna live whatever". That statement implies certainty about the status of the foetus which imo the guy cannot possibly have, and certainty about the existence of his god, and certainty about the existence of the decree and certainty about the meaning of the decree implying an absolute which imo the guy also cannot possibly have. That position is imo at one end of a spectrum, ergo "extreme". If it helps at all I also have a problem with a view that says a woman should be able to do whatever she likes, whenever she likes. quote: Sorry Stephen I didn't address the hypothetical question you posed before. All I can do is speculate on my position in the eventuality that I became absolutely convinced that the "may" had been removed from "may be human" As I am, by abortion advocate standards, inherently cautious I suspect that certainty about the humanness of a foetus wouldn't make that much difference to the circumstances under which I personally though an abortion was the right course. If you want an example you have one above (a real one actually). You see Stephen, you an I differ on the meaning of "life", there are plainly circumstances when a person might feel death is preferable to biological life and those circumstances can last for many years. I've already demonstrated to Denise that even she would be prepared to kill another human, thereby attaching value to life, there are no absolutes in this. br> quote: My own person opinion (supported by UK law) is that emotional response is a very important part of decision making in abortion issues and that's part of the reason why I believe development does have a bearing here. quote: And my answer is that there is no simple answer to that, as there is no simple answer to most of your questions. As Bob has said, the practical position is that a woman has a choice, period. The entity inside her is part of her body for a while and she can go off and do what she likes with her body and nobody can really stop her. You can talk about "rights" and "moral imperatives" and "the sanctity of life" and "the will of God" till kingdom come (lol), those things don't help to find resolutions. quote:Because there is an ethical priority with the protection of human life, that takes precedence over measures to relieve the distress of traumatized woman. I have ethical priorities too Stephen - I think there is an ethical priority with the protection of a pheasant's life that takes precedence over measures to give our local protestant parish clerk a joyful time on his Saturday afternoon shoot. Even if I accepted your "ethical priority", which as you can see, may be in doubt, your statement doesn't work in the context of what I've said above, and the concept of attaching different value to different human life. quote: I couldn't agree more. Everything about this issue is "questionable", that's what makes it so difficult. quote: Like I keep repeating. I am not sure the "typical pro-life" position exists in my sphere of operations. You may be right, but as I am not sure what you mean I can't be sure. I don't restrict myself rigidly to cases involving rape or potential loss of life because many other situations present significant challenges too, but what I am sure of is that abortion is never ever a good solution. The idea of a woman using abortion as a form of casual contraception is abhorrent to me, and here, at least, abortions are illegal after 24 weeks (too long imo). M |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: I've already explained Bob, that both sides of the debate believe in the right of women to make personal choices ... just as both sides of the debate believe in protecting "life". The disagreement typically has been over whether the fetus is a human being or not. For if it is, then the right of the mother to choose abortion immediately becomes debatable ... and historically it has been anyway, among both women and men, since it became a public issue, and one entangled in medicine and legality. This should be understandable to you since you already understand that the protection of other human lives often trumps rights that we would otherwise be free to exercise. Using terms like "Anti-Choice" or "Anti-Life" as slurs, only serve to irritate and to muddle the real issues of the debate. That's why I have chosen to call the positions "Pro-Life" and "Abortion-Rights". But I'm perfectly fine with "Anti-Abortion" and "Abortion-rights" as well. I think any of these terms describe (as much as possible) the key points of each position. quote: Actually Bob, this is a misleading statement by you. It has never been unanimous among women whether abortion is a right, nor whether it is moral. And I appreciate your admiration of courage and political boldness. But that, ipso facto, can be no indication of rightness or goodness. Historically we have seen people time and again sacrifice much for very wrong things. quote: Again Bob, are you saying that tenacity, perseverance, or stubborness is always in indication of rightness? Neither the doing of something, nor the dogged determination that accompanies it, guarantees that it is a right. quote: Either you've not been reading closely, or you are holding on to an irrational belief that pro-life people are not "for" or not involved in measures to deal with the problems that lead to abortion. I myself have adopted from China two unwanted children both with "special needs", who could have easily been aborted, due to government insistence on less children and the sanctioning of abortion. They have cost us much personally, and yet we think nothing of this since we count ourselves blessed to have them as our children. But Bob, as far as the debate goes this amounts to little more than resorting to ad hominem. Don't do it please. The bottom line is, still, whether the fetus is a human being. If so, then none of these problems would justify killing. And yes the problems should be addressed, and actually are. Thankfully there are options for women who do not want to keep their babies. quote: I guess you're unfamiliar with the history of Apartheid in Africa or Slavery in the United States. These human rights crises did not end in a few years, and they were rife with moral disapproval by those who opposed them. quote: It's a poor suggestion. I don't think its true of me, I I know it isn't true of many I know. quote: As I've said before Bob, these problems are being dealt with (imperfectly of course, like all of the social problems we attempt to deal with), and should be followed-through. But did you know that there is a phenomenally large number of abortions done for reasons other than these? I was shocked to find out that gender selection is some-times a reason. You've given one yourself ... "I don't want to be a mother". If the fetus is a human being, the problems you mention, do not trump the right to life of the unborn. If abortions are done for reasons other than the abject social problems you mention, then obviously fixing them will not eradicate abortion. So that cannot be the only approach. Some believe that a Government-sanctioned abortion industry in a free-market society will obfuscate scientific, ethical, and biological realities in order to proceed with business. I don't think all women are immoral for abortion. I think many of them have been decieved by misleading propaganda. quote: Couldn't this be said of Mothers of newborns or toddlers too? Do you support infanticide or child abandonment based upon a Mother's "ambitions"? How would these situations be different? And BTW, there is an educated choice involved in pregnancy in most abortion cases. quote: Well seeing you've totally misrepresented my views, and the views of most pro-life advocates, I suppose that straw-man could never be "sufficient" for you. Continuing to bring up the extremes of murdering abortion doctors and bombing clinics (which I, along with most pro-life advocates, have already heartily condemned) is bewildering. Whatever, it has little bearing on the whole debate, other than to suggest that it is a morally charged and controversial matter that leads some people to commit horrible acts as a response. Are you denying that legitimate attempts at social reform (addressing ALL the problems involved including the need of protecting the unborn), can exist alongside bad examples? That's the bad side of human nature coming through along with the good. Stephen |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I come to the discussion, moonbeam, with the viewpoint that abortion for other than preserving the physical life of the mother is morally wrong. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Denise And if you think it's morally wrong, I'm guessing, but you wouldn't condone ANY scenario under ANY circumstances(other than potential death of the mother) which breached that moral position? M |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's correct. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Denise I understand. You are consistent I think. What you're saying is that your moral dictum is: "you shall not kill unless another life is in jeopardy". Which fits with a scenario where you shoot an armed maniac before he shoots your daughters. Is that right? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Once upon a time, the men and women lived together, seperately. The men went off to hunt provisions of meat and skins, in seasons did they kill. The women gathered up the roots and leaves, according to the same seasons, and they/them managed spices such--to whit there was medicinals--certain herbs were wise or "weal"--they were known as "vanquish us." Men did not have knowledge of the freedom that the women found. (Men don't really think too much of what happens when they aren't around...)  But women, in their gatherings, learned about the plant of seeds. And they learned to figure out, which ones were fruit and which were weed. And whisperings began about the Dong Quai and the Wild Yam bleed... Sisters at the well took note, who was waddling each year. They counted heads--who must be fed--and they figured out the yield that the crops that they spread out, were not guaranteed a feed-- since woman child was sacrificed virginal for each crop's yield. So they learned to make their teas--specified, unto each need. They also learned to cure their meat--sometimes? Tch..permanently...? Not that everything is so simple...but choice has always been, and always will be. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
crrrrrrrrrrrrrap... I RHYMED.  Ya'll may proceed. (like ya'll need permission! Heh?  )shadding up  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: How is using the term "abortion-rights" an attempt to pigeonhole? It generally describes the position of most who want women to have the legal right of abortion. Why constantly object to the use of terminology (which is unavoidable when talking about most anything), since I am willing to talk about nuances and diversity within those groups as well. Its almost like protesting the term "musician" since, after all, not all musicians are alike. quote: For the most part, I'll take that as a compliment. Ron's a pretty bright bulb on the tree, in my opinion. But actually, I was asking a question in response to your statement that those who argue against abortion based on the 6th Commandment are extreme. Perhaps you meant something different than I thought you did. I thought you meant their position was extreme. Perhaps, instead, you mean only that their methods are? Anyway their position seems little different than the moral assumptions of most abortion-rights defenders I've read or spoken to ... namely that innocent human life should not be killed. The argument is not usually that it should, but that it is really somehow less-than-human. quote: Actually I have never over-simplified the issue to the point of saying that all killing of human life is always wrong. Capital punishment (whether you agree or not) is based upon the guilt of the executed. Abortion to save the mother's life is based upon the fact that it would be better to save one life than none. No abortions involve the killing of a guilty human. And most abortions do not involve a life-saving measure for the mother. What you are not admitting is that, in our legal system, the right to life always takes priority over the personal rights of others, excepting the extreme situations you just mentioned. quote: What you haven't established, is how or even if an abortion will ease the mental trauma of rape. It won't. It will however end the life of someone who didn't rape anyone. And you keep bringing the religious aspect in, but as long as you already agree that innocent human life should be protected, that can remain a different discussion. There are a significant amount of pro-life people who are not religious. quote: It's not uncertain as you say. But since science has made the question and doubt much more acute for those who deny the humanity of the fetus ... how would legalized abortion be justified in the light of uncertainty? A position which says, "You can terminate the life, but were not sure that it's not human", would be far more extreme. quote: I do appreciate our common ground. But I don't think you are providing any criteria for not allowing just that. For if the fetus is not human, she should be able to whatever she likes whenever she likes. quote: The existence of moral priorities does not show that "there are no absolutes". You are describing suicidal tendencies. I am against Euthanasia as well, since the medical community should not be hijacked to take up the cause of suicide "rights". In the case of Denise, she (like me) already admitted that sometimes life may be taken for the protection of another. Again, we are talking about a majority of abortion cases which have nothing to do with such life-saving measures. quote: You reiterated your view, but you didn't answer my question. I pointed out that many mothers are not emotionally attached to their newborns, and have no desire to be mothers. Why does protection of the newborn (from either infanticide or abandonment) overrule "emotion" in this case, and not in abortion? quote: I'm not necessarily asking for a simple answer. Our present laws protect human life overriding many rights to personal ease (which otherwise would be legitimate). I'm asking why this is always the case (excepting for the protection of another life). But you are proposing that it should be different with abortion. quote: That is no argument. Current laws do not stop murder either, nor do they take away choice. Murderers may still go off and do what they like to someone else's body, and nobody can really stop them. The sheer philosophical reality of having "choice" has little bearing in law or ethics, or else everything should be legal. Besides, there are two bodies in pregancy, not one, though one of them is dependent. quote: I didn't mean "questionable" in the sense that it is debatable. For a moral relativist everything is debatable except moral relativism. What I meant was, there is little evidence that aborting the child will improve the mental distress of a rape victim. It's really a moot question though, unless we should be able to put other people to death because of mental distress. quote: Under current laws with the hopelessly wide definition of a woman's health, (to quote Francis Beckwith) women may get an abortion before "viability" for no reason, and afterward for any reason. quote: No, Karen. Everything is that simple. Legality never takes away choice, though it limits it to some degree. I don't believe there would be as many abortions if the abortion industry were not given the freedom to promote the propaganda that the fetus is nothing more than a spare appendix. With education and more understanding of what the expansive lens of science has shown, I think more women may consider different choices. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. But it is that simple. So you're against abortion. *shrug* Don't have one. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
So you're against slavery. (shrug) So don't have one. (you shouldn't oversimplify the issue like that) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.newsweek.com/id/163896 . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, In my last posting, I did not discuss the issue of right versus wrong. In your response you returned to it repeatedly. In this sense I believe it would be useful to understand that we are talking on two different tracks here. Your concern is with the moral implications of abortion, whether the fetus is a human life or not and various alternatives to abortion. It is a given to you that abortion is an evil, and that it must be stopped. I say to you that women who are in the process of making the decision to have or not have an abortion, while certainly considering these things, are more interested in talking about other material in making their decision. I have seen women make this decision both ways. Most women in this position who come to counseling believe they have the right to make the decision. It is an artifact of the selection process, Stephanos; if they didn't feel they could make a decision, they wouldn't come to counseling to get help in making it. Women who feel that abortion is out of the question don't come. Women who have already decided don't have to bring it up. A lot of abortions happened before they became legal. We will never know how many. Women had them because they felt they were necessary, and they felt that even if society didn't like what they were doing, and they didn't like what they were doing, they had the right to get one on the most basic level. It was an existential choice, and sometimes one of the central choices of their lives. If you want to intervene in a choice that basic, I put it to you again, you are not going about it the correct way. The alternatives you offer must be felt by the women in question at that moment to be more compelling that the decision to have an abortion. Fear is not a way to make an alternative more compelling on a long term basis. More draconian laws simply serve to fill prisons, not to change behaviors if the behaviors are as basic as this one seems to be. Certainly this has been the result of our drug laws. Something different needs to be done if you want a different result. The result I would like to see is that women who want to have kids are having kids happily, and women who don't want to have kids are happily not having kids, and they are free to decide to change their minds about which they want to be. And the society is able to provide a safe and supportive enough safety net for them that they feel comfortable in whichever choice they make. What's the outcome you'd like to see, and what the outcome that women would like to see? Maybe there are elements in common we can all agree on. At least it'd be nice to see what those elements might be. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Before I respond, I would like you to explain what you mean by "basic". In what sense is abortion a basic choice? Could you give me an example of a law that prohibits an action that you consider to be not as basic as abortion? I have no idea what you mean. I'm hoping you'll explain. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Steven re: "Could you give me an example of a law that prohibits an action that you consider to be not as basic as abortion?" Well, the city of Santa Monica prohibits one from walking a dog on the beach. That's not as basic as abortion, but its prohibited all the same. I don't think that's what the question means, but it's what the question asks. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Actually I was making a general point about labels in response to your general point about not labelling. But since you use the example of musicians ... "Musician" is a harmless unemotive term to describe a HUGE range of practitioners. Hence of itself it conveys nothing specific about the person it describes other than he might play an instrument of some kind. The terms pro, anti, etc used in the abortion debate have become extremely emotive and as soon as they are used, in some peoples minds, apparently convey something very specific about a person's beliefs, even if inaccurately (see how surprised Denise was for example after she'd labelled me pro choice when she found out what I actually believed). I regard myself as pro life pro choice anti abortion and pro abortion. Perhaps Stephen you might like to define what precisely a pro-choice person and pro-life person is, then we can discuss this some more if you want. quote: Well, as you know, that last argument is not my position. quote: And I never said you did. I said nothing about "all human life"; I said "this", as in the issue of abortion. As in the issue of a foetus. quote: I have not been called upon to admit it yet so far as I can recall. If you want me to now then of course I admit that in most situations apart from extreme ones, this is the case. So what? quote: That Stephen, is a statement I hope you make from personal experience and not relying on government statistics or media reporting. In my personal experience it's inaccurate. In fact grossly inaccurate. And I have been involved in instances of far less trauma than rape where early abortion, and yes, the possible termination of a human life, was in my view the best course. Both you and Denise have pressed me to give detailed examples. Apart from the fact that I haven't the time or emotional inclination to set out long case histories here, I base my refusal to do so for people who hold the views that you and Denise do on my past experiences of so doing. Under pressure from those who believe that a fixed "moral" position which implies abortion only in the case of imminent danger to the mother's life is justified, I have sometimes tried to relate cases in sufficient depth to show them that such a position, even if theoretically comforting, is not practically tenable for a caring person to hold. I've quickly come to realise that the discussion isn't really about justifying my views to them, but much more about them convincing themselves that their "one size fits all" approach can stand the test of actual practical examples. Sorry to go back to religion, but the analogy that immediately springs to mind is the mindset of the person who, from a secret position of absolute conviction in his own faith, magnanimously undertakes to "investigate" the claims of other religions. The result is generally not an objective analysis from a clean starting point, but simply a critique of gap between the "right" view and the "other" view. The fact is Stephen I am secure in my own moral position which is that it is wrong to kill. But there are instances where the wrongness of killing can be mitigated by other moral imperatives. We just differ on the extent of those other imperatives. quote: Did you mean it IS uncertain? I am no longer involved first hand with the CAB, and out of date with the latest science, but as I said before it probably wouldn't make me change my views much. We're going to have to disagree on what is extreme. We are starting to go round in circles here Stephen. I have previously stated, and I will state again, that you and I have a different approach to the use of the word "life" in this issue (another aspect of the matter which makes simplistic labels unhelpful btw). You are simply employing the medical and biological meaning of the word (whatever that is! because there is plenty of disagreement even in those circles) whereas I take the view that "to live" or "life" consists of more than simply breath, heart-beats and brain. If you think that those things are the be-all and end-all, and moreover you are unprepared to attach any significance to the developmental stages of human life in terms of assessing the value of that life against the value of another life (in the sense that I mean life), then I suspect we've reached the limit of the common ground we have and accordingly the end of this debate. quote: You are totally fixated with the importance of whether the foetus is human or not. Watch my lips for the umpteenth time: "In my opinion that is not the central issue here". And: "I accept that the foetus may be human, and accordingly she should not be "allowed" (in a legal sense) to do whatever, whenever" quote: Sorry I didn't notice that question before. As I've hinted, or maybe even said explicitly, I think developmental stages are an important part of the mix of considerations in abortion matters. I've already said that I believe current UK law extends too much latitude. I think you can work out from that what my answer is. quote: I've really answered this above, it has to do with my views on the importance of the stage of development of the foetus, the meaning of "life" and the exceptional potential for harm to the mother. quote: I wasn't using it as an argument actually Stephen, I was simply pointing out the practical position (obviously indicating one of the problems with illegality) which is that a woman can physically do as she wishes, and imo it is therefore better to try and work "with" her rather than against "her". I didn't say there was one body. I said "the entity is part of her body", in the sense of attached to, inside. I simply repeat, she can do what she wants with her body, and the foetus has to "follow". quote: to moral relativism.I know what you meant, sorry to be flip, but again, I've stated my position above. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephan--my brother: Here's something a bit more complex for you. A woman discovers to her joy, she is pregnant. After some puzzling symptoms, test results show that she is carrying a fetus that is missing something. One simple, but very complex thing: a chromosome. And thus commences the nervous breakdown, and time is indeed wasted as she confronts this moral dilemma. She wasn't financially prepared to have a healthy child. (Very few are.) She is obviously incapable of coping emotionally with a child that is mentally handicapped, and as a result, she begins to physically deteriorate--the placenta is already seperating, producing blood on the brain of the fetus. There is a possibility that the baby might live--but she is no longer emotionally capable, and in possible physical danger if she chooses (CHOOSES, mind you) to carry this pregnancy to term. She could be risking her life to produce a baby with not much chance of survival, and a questionable quality of life for her entire family if the boy survives. What about her other children? Don't they need a mother too? Even if she proceeds to have the abortion, I promise you she's going to need some help returning to her role as a mother. This all began with her emotional stability as the issue, but now her physical life is in jeopardy as well. Now I ask you for solutions here. Is this an extreme case? Indeed it is. Is it made up to prove my point? I wish it were. However noble the intent of the pro-life folk, they actually have no way of knowing the particulars of each woman's life and circumstance before they deny her choice. You have already conceded that it is an emotional issue--which is why it is not the business of anyone but the patient. It's been said loudly that pro-choice (not pro-DEATH, btw) advocates are playing God. I contend that pro-life folk are doing the same. And in a country with seperation of church and state, it's a non-issue. I talked of herbs, perhaps too playfully for the seriousness of the subject, but it's a valid point. When we all let the slogan of "better living through chemicals" slide past our ears and into our collective psyche, I doubt we gave much thought that a more efficient death via chemicals might also be considered. I maintain my right for privacy. And I pray my friend's right will be maintained as well. We've discussed this issue before, and I also pray I have the fortitude to never engage in such a nonversation again. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Jim was correct when he responded to the actual question you asked. I will sidestep the urge to look beyond the actual mistake and at the psychological meaning of the mistake (other than this mention of it) and try to give you the answer to the question I think you're asking. Basic questions come in many sizes and shapes. The type I am talking about here are related to the sense of their origin being literally felt (in the sense of proprioception, not affect) as originating within the boundaries of the physical body, and sending physiological signals about the nature and well-being of that body. Questions of this type tend to get processed first by the brain, and by levels of brain processing closer to the brain stem. The cortex, which is where much of the debate we are talking about takes place, is a much more recent addition and has much less influence on decision making for the most part. Basic in this sense also is something I associate with Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Basic physiological needs such as breathing, temperature regulation and heartbeat regulation generally take precidence over altruistic wishes and desires—also legitimate needs, but needs that are simpler to fulfill once the kids are fed. The needs that women making the decisions about abortion are frequently faced with are in this sense much more basic since many of them have to do with internal signals and their interpretation. This is an intellectual explanation for something that is not an intellectual thing. To get a better answer, you'd have to actually ask women who've made the decision and made their peace with it, without being judgemental yourself, and then trying to understand what they have to say. This may be asking too much. Anyway, I mean in this case responding to internal and physiological signals of a proprioceptive and not afective nature and interpreting them from a position of more rather than less need in life, and making decisions that come from those factors as a baseline. This is not to say that women can't make the same decision to have an abortion from a different position. But you wanted clarification about basics, and in a grossly simplifed fashion, I've tried to offer it to you. My sense is that this is probably pretty much what you thought it would be, though. Is it? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: In simplest terms, "pro-choice" advocates are for women to have a legal right to abort their unborn children, while "pro-life" advocates are against this legal right, for the protection of the unborn. quote: Those terms are very emotive because the whole issue is. You still cannot escape the terminology. Perhaps I could clarify your position for myself by asking where you think the law should be drawn? Which abortions should be allowed and which should not? quote: That's why I've been trying to demonstrate that your position is much more "extreme" than those who protest abortion by making mention of the Decalogue. You seem to believe the fetus to be a human being, and still opt for the rights of others to terminate its life. quote: So what? The "extreme cases" you are referring to invariably involve the taking of a physical life only in protection of another from death. Most abortions do not involve this. There is obviously a difference. I am asking you to explain it and or justify it. quote: And I've come to realize that a "one size fits all" position is inevitable as well, if you do not accept that the protection of an innocent human life takes precedence over non-life-threatening circumstances for someone else. For a woman's "health" and well-being has been stretched to defy all definition, essentially allowing abortion for any reason. Again, in view that the fetus is a human being, where do you think the legal line should be drawn? quote: I'm asking you to support the priority of your moral imperitives. Where, outside abortion, does a non-life-threatening situation take precedence over the life of another human being? If your moral principle holds, it should be true elsewhere, and in other examples, don't you think? quote: Plenty of disagreement? Could you cite some of it? "I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life- when life begins- is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and Philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life begins at conception. I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against. (Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic) quote: Okay, let's not be vague. Can you give me an example of intact breath, heart and brain that is not "life", and explain why? quote: Moonbeam, I'm fine to stop or continue at your wishes. However I would remind you that it is only in utero that you are prepared to allow development to determine the value of a human life. Why doesn't it apply post-birth in the same manner? A newborn is certainly less developed than an eight year old, and he less than a twenty year old. Infanticide does not disturb you any less than adult murder does it? Your idea that development determines value is not consistent. quote: Sorry to repeat myself, but where should the legal lines be drawn then and why? quote: Actually I cannot, from what you said, tell what your answer is. But I will respond by pointing out that the "development determines human value" argument could apply just as well to the newborn. After all, newborns are the least developed of born human beings. So, how can that be your answer? quote: I don't believe anti-abortion laws would be, in any practical sense or otherwise, against women ... anymore than DUI laws are against drivers (or drinkers for that matter). I do believe however, along with education about the nature of the fetus and social helps, that far less women would resort to abortion. I am not under the illusion that anti-abortion laws would eliminate it altogether. quote: Come on Moonbeam ... You make it sound as if it were something done to one's own body that inadvertently affects the fetus. It is primarily and consciously something done to the fetus ... and the mother doesn't follow. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-16-2008 11:48 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Karen, I have already conceded that extreme situations are different. Where the mother's life is truly in jeopardy beyond the normal risks of pregnancy, abortion may become a necessary though unfortunate option. Most pro-life advocates would concede such. And those who wouldn't probably don't understand the implications. Just as a physician would have to document good evidence for a lobectomy on a patient in order to legally do the procedure, physicians could carry out an abortion if there is ample medical weight to say that the mother is in jeopardy. I have a harder time accepting abortion based upon something wrong with the fetus, since it so often turns out different. Many disabled people seem able to reach a degree of happiness that the "normal" can't quite attain. And more often people become sure that they would not trade (for the world) disabled children they chose to keep. There's a woman I work with who fits this description regarding her daughter, who was counseled to abort. These are harrowing situations, Karen. I don't intend to downplay the difficulty of them. I do think though, in many cases, there may be more help than initially thought of during the shock of discovery. quote: I think you would agree that not all abortion cases involve a "patient" except in the sheer technical sense of someone who signs up for a certain procedure. Abortion as birth-control ... Abortion as gender selection ... Abortion as a reversion back into adolescence ... These probably could be described in much better terms than medical problems. That's why I've always protested a bit when you've said that. Though I want you to understand that I believe there are those who can truly be called patients. And Karen? Thanks for being civil and kind with me. I know this is a thorny subject. The very fact that we can see things differently, discuss it fully, and still respect each other shows that we've got something right. Bob, ol' pal. I'll respond to you later. It's "night night" time. <---guess you can tell I've been 'round kids too long. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I once had a pesky splinter removed, Stephan. Trivial? YES. But I think my doctor would agree I was his patient. If not--I'd like my money back. And lawsy, if someone thanks me for being civil...? *laughing* I must have a certain reputation! hmmm. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
OH. And don't mistake my civility for agreement. <--we're seein' this guy a lot lately.The only way you could come to a decision regarding whether or not someone's personal situation fits your criteria of morality is to invade their right to medical privacy. You know better, too. Tsk... (Shrug and smile..I just thought that guy should exercize his finger some more...) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Karen, I'll jump in on this one because i can speak from experience....in a way. I did not have the option, that is true, although I had a child that was born with spina bifida. I was told the child would need a shunt in the brain, constant operations, and would probably not live past the age of six. I was not in a position where I could afford anything like that. What to do? Through a nurse at the hospital I found a group of people who are saints, to say the least. They take in children with just about any birth defect you can imagine, raise them and treat them as their own children because they feel they are doing God's work. A family in Ohio took in my daughter and raised her. She went through grade school, high school and is now 25 years old. One may say she has a limited life....she doesn't. She has no complaints and is happy every day to be alive. She can be found here.. [URL=/main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=69&topic=002798]/main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=69&topic=002798[/UR L] IF I had had an option, what would I have done? I don't know. If her defect could have been discovered before birth and the option of abortion presented to me, I can't honestly say what I would have done. Since it wasn't, though, I discovered all these other options I hadn't been aware of and my daughter is alive and well and happy. I can't but help think there is a message here somewhere....... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, You know I didn't mistake civility for agreement. But I don't mind the finger as long as its the index one. As I've mentioned before, to dream that law and medicine don't (or shouldn't) intersect is to misunderstand. No matter how much I might want it (I don't really), I couldn't get a physician to kill me pharmacologically. Why? Because it is outside the scope of medicine. Neither could a doctor legally do a surgery on me without an MD license, no matter how I agreed to the procedure. I mention these examples to say that medicine is anything but a totally private enterprise. Surely you know its regulated in various degrees. Where another human life is involved, some degree of regulation is warranted. Whether or not we agree about regulating abortion aside ... I never said you weren't the "patient". What I'm trying to say is that neither the doctor nor patient has complete autonomy. If you don't think there all already many people "reviewing" your charts, think again. Some of it may be bad or intrusive, but some of it is good and necessary for the critique of medical practice which is not in a vacuum. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephen This discussion is getting kind of strung out, and there are a lot of points that could probably be knocked on the head by trying to summarize our differences. As far as I can see you're coming from a position akin to that of a moral absolutist (whether religion based or not), but then watering that down with certain "exceptions". Thus, you believe it is morally wrong to kill? Is that another living being? Or do you distinguish between humans and animals? It's ok to kill a rare tiger? Ok to kill a man eating rare tiger? Ok to kill a house fly? Ok to kill a honeybee, a rabid dog, a cat, your daughter's pet cat? A neanderthal? A cloned half ape half human? A pheasant for the pot? A pheasant for pleasure? It's ok, to kill a cat but not a baby? You believe it's morally wrong to kill? But it's ok to kill a foetus if the mother's life is threatened? Is it ok to kill a newborn in the same circumstances? A 2 year old? You believe it's morally wrong to kill? But it's ok to kill a murderer who has been tried and sentenced? You believe it's morally wrong to kill? But it's ok for a General to send a cruise missile into Baghdad and kill a hundred babies? It's ok to shoot a man on a subway if you think he's a terrorist? The fact is, Stephen, you are trying to pin me down to a position which I won't be pinned to. Call me a relativist if you want to, but I think I'd rather be that than be accused of having a theoretical absolute view which in practice was unsustainable. You want me to reconcile the apparent importance I attach to development in the womb but not out of it. You want me to state exactly where I think the law should stand, and which abortions should be allowed and which not. You want me to justify why I think that in some circumstances it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy even if the mother's physical life is not threatened. In short you want me to set out my fixed moral position which should apply, as you effectively put it, "in all circumstances". I can't do that, I've never pretended I can, and moreover I think an attempt to do so is potentially dishonest and of itself immoral. Apart from the obvious physical circumstances that makes a pregnancy different from the other scenarios you paint, there are other mental ones too. Even if I admit that physically the foetus may be human at the point of conception, it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the different psychological impacts of an unseen zygote as opposed to a visible warm breathing newborn. Stephen I really can't be bothered, and I haven't got the emotional energy, to sit here and type out all the complex factors that distinguish a potential abortion scenario from potential infanticide. If you really can't step beyond the purely medical and physical parameters, then, as I said before, there isn't much more to say. You asked me about "life", and how breath, heart and brain cannot be life. My sister-in-law's sister had a traumatic experience when she was 11 years old. She spent 20 years on diazepam (the rest I won't relate) she then jumped from a multi storey car park. She didn't "live" for those 20 years. People who are in favour of making all abortion illegal often ask people like me what gives us the "right" to "allow" a woman to kill the foetus. Sometimes I feel like shooting back, and what gives you the right to decide that a woman will suffer that kind of hell? But then that would be to descend to their level of unhelpful and destructive simplicity. As for the law, I've said up above to Ron that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. I'd put a time limit less that 24 weeks but more than 8. I'd probably ban multiple abortions (with exceptions). Ideally compulsory counselling before the choice was made with reference to a tribunal with the power to refuse. The underlying principle would be to discourage abortion wherever possible, and to make it not a matter of course that one would be allowed. In some situations such as rape, coercion, extreme parental pressure, possibly in forced or arranged marriages, no obstacles would be put in the way of a decision to abort. The bottom line here Stephen is that we are not far apart - but you don't like the way I am "grounding" my ideas on what appears to you to be wavering morals. You don't appear to accept that abortion IS a special case and DOES warrant a different approach. Most of your questions from your previous post are now answered I hope, but I'll just run through them quickly. Apologies for the lack of quotes; out of time here (my comment as >>>) Stephen (S) "In simplest terms, "pro-choice" advocates are for women to have a legal right to abort their unborn children, while "pro-life" advocates are against this legal right, for the protection of the unborn." >>> "In simplest terms" - precisely! Too simple. S: "Those terms are very emotive because the whole issue is. You still cannot escape the terminology. Perhaps I could clarify your position for myself by asking where you think the law should be drawn? Which abortions should be allowed and which should not?" >>>see above. S: That's why I've been trying to demonstrate that your position is much more "extreme" than those who protest abortion by making mention of the Decalogue. You seem to believe the fetus to be a human being, and still opt for the rights of others to terminate its life. >>>Exactly so. See above. S: "For a woman's "health" and well-being has been stretched to defy all definition, essentially allowing abortion for any reason." >>>That in my view is wrong, as I've said. S: "I'm asking you to support the priority of your moral imperitives. Where, outside abortion, does a non-life-threatening situation take precedence over the life of another human being?" >>>I can't easily support the priority of my moral imperatives without giving detailed examples, it's an evidential thing, which I'm not sure I want to elaborate on here. Answer all my questions at the beginning of this post and I may discuss this further if you want. S: "If your moral principle holds, it should be true elsewhere, and in other examples, don't you think?" >>>No. Already explained above. S: "Plenty of disagreement? Could you cite some of it? "I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life- when life begins- is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and Philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life begins at conception. I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against. (Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic)" >>>Happy to bow to your up-to-date knowledge Stephen, it's been 10 year since I listened to the arguments in hospital common rooms. But the point was an irrelevant aside. I shouldn't have confused the issue. S: "Okay, let's not be vague. Can you give me an example of intact breath, heart and brain that is not "life", and explain why?" >>>see above. S: "Moonbeam, I'm fine to stop or continue at your wishes. However I would remind you that it is only in utero that you are prepared to allow development to determine the value of a human life. Why doesn't it apply post-birth in the same manner? A newborn is certainly less developed than an eight year old, and he less than a twenty year old. Infanticide does not disturb you any less than adult murder does it? Your idea that development determines value is not consistent." >>>Development is only one element of a complex mix. See above. S: "I do believe however, along with education about the nature of the fetus and social helps, that far less women would resort to abortion." >>>I agree!! M: "quote:I simply repeat, she can do what she wants with her body, and the foetus has to "follow"." S: "Come on Moonbeam ... You make it sound as if it were something done to one's own body that inadvertently affects the fetus. It is primarily and consciously something done to the fetus ... and the mother doesn't follow." >>>Misunderstanding Stephen. I meant as in kill herself, or take herself off to a place where abortions would be performed that are illegal where she is, or harm herself in other ways which would also harm the foetus. I was simply pointing out the obvious practical position, that the foetus is at the mercy of the mother, with the possible implication that collaboration might be better than confrontation. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You were going to get back to me? Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
The Doctor told my mom to abort me, because she was to old, She had a "female disease," and her heart was bad. If my mom wasn't pro-choice I or my brother wouldn't exist. I personally believe abortion is used by politicians as a quick fix to wage slavery. I think that instead of addressing that there is poverty, which poeple get stuck in a certain political party used it, as a way to commit class-est genocide legally. Instead of focassing of getting out of poverty it was how can we get them to stop complaining. I like to call this "Tudor paternalism" But that is my opinion -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, Indeed, your mother was pro-choice. While it is possible that the Doctor told your mother to have an abortion, I suspect that what she actually said was something a bit different. Doctors are trained not to make statements like that. They are sometimes actionable as a matter of legality (I believe); and they are bad medicine, I believe, as a matter of practice. Doctors are trained to give the patient the information and let them know what the options are. Some doctors will let a patient know what their opinion is, sometimes without waiting to be asked. I think they should wait. If your mother was "old" and ill with a "woman's problem" and she had a bad heart, objectively speaking abortion was one of the options she should have considered. A fair number of women tend to die from that combination of risk factors. Charlotte Bronte, author of [iJane Eyere], was among them; she married at 39 and died a year later in childbirth. The fact that she decided not to have an abortion for either you or your brother is something that pro-choice people should support. Pro-choice, after all, doesn't mean only the choice to have an abortion, but also the choice not to as well. Both should be available. Neither should be forced. I for one am glad your mother made the decision she did. I wonder what might have happened if Charlotte Bronte had felt she might make that decision as well. Or maybe she did. It was good to hear your emotional story. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Sorry, alot has been happening round here. Yes, I will still get back with you on this. Within a few days. Don't throw this thread on the heap just yet. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Turn that on it’s head Juju - if Alois and Lara and Kathleen Maddox were pro-choice and decided to have an abortion would the world be a better place? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Or Hitler's mother or Idi Amin's mother, or Caligula's mother.....where does that argument end? We have had a variety of people throughout history in which the world would have been better off if they had not been born. If Hitler's mother had had the knowledge that her son would be responsible for killing millions of people and starting a world war, perhaps she would have opted for abortion, if given the choice. But that's the rub. We don't know beforehand, do we? Whether that child coming out might be a sweet Juju or a Milosovic has little to do with birth. It has all to do with what happens afterward. I suggest the politicians that fight over right to life be more concerned with poverty, lack of education and the myriad of other things that influence those children growing up. Other that or we'd have to just kill the kids at birth so as not to take chances, which would also solve the over-population problem, the world hunger problem and the "running out of natural resources" problems that face the world....not to mention that the golf course wouldn't be as crowded when I tee off |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That was my point Mike - you can’t point to Juju and say “look what we would have lost” without pointing at Hitler and lamenting what we’d have gained. The argument is equally invalid - it’s what you’d call a straw man , it looks like a good representation of a valid argument but doesn’t face up to close scrutiny. quote: You’re ahead of your time Mike - That isn’t suggested as a solution until July 2047 although there are rumours that the Chinese introduced it two years earlier in breach of the Genetic Behavioural Profiling ban. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Whoops - I apparently just instigated the butterfly effect. My bad. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Bob, I honestly feel (as you probably do too) that I am uselessly repeating myself here. But just in case, I'll attempt a fuller explanation of why I think you are misinterpreting me. I am not advocating anti-abortion laws soley to change mothers' minds. However I do think if abortion were not sanctioned by the state, and not allowed to be a private consumer service, that we would be more likely to share accurate information regarding the human nature of the unborn. And that result would change many mothers' minds, though certainly not all. The primary purpose of anti-abortion laws is the protection of the unborn. If abortion is not state sanctioned as it now is, then there will be less abortions. When you say that prior to abortion becoming legal, they were done of an unspecified number ... you are right. Statistics cannot say much about what was unmonitored. Intuitively, however, there will be less abortions when it is not dressed in the consumer/clinical guise of benevolent medical service, and rhetoric about it being little different than an appendectomy. That much is common sense. There is no reason that social solutions about difficult situations for mothers cannot be talked about concurrently with efforts to make abortion illegal. The reason you are against this legislative talk, is really not because you deem it ineffective to the pro-life cause, but because you think women should have the right to abort. This is why you only mention things like drug laws and not things like infanticide laws. Because when it all comes down, whether you think infanticide laws can adequately prevent so "basic" a choice as murdering an infant, you are still firmly for those laws. The question of humanity is still central to our discussion, because if you could give me any reasons to think that a fetus is not a human being, I would not dream of denying abortion as a right. And if you deem it as a human being, you shouldn't dream that it is a right at all. In conclusion, you seem to place social solutions and laws to protect the unborn in an "either/or" juxtaposition. But I believe it is due to either your lack of belief in the humanity of the fetus, or your denial that the right to live of one human being should trump, to some degree, the right of choice for another. The evidence for my estimation of your position, is that you would never even peep of making infanticide legal, in order to improve social programs to help those desperate enough to resort to such an act. The fact is, legal protection of one group, and therapy of another are not antithetical. respectfully, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Hopefully you are still reading this thread whenever it pops back up to the surface. quote: No, I'm not "watering it down" with exceptions. All moral positions involve prioritizing and qualification. It is a real moral principle not to limit someone's choices arbitrarily. But that principle falls beneath a more important principle of protecting an innocent human life. I have merely been pointing out your inconsistency in desiring laws to protect you from someone's free "choice" of killing you to make life easier on themselves, while not advocating laws to protect the lives of unborn human beings. There is no difference. You yourself prioritize in the exact same way ... only making exception with abortion apparantly. Though it is a worthwhile question for you whether morals of any kind (beyond opinion or preference) make sense apart from a religious framework, the religious question is another thread entirely, since common moral insight exists for the religious and non-religious alike. quote: We have been given moral sanction through the scriptures, and through conscience to kill animals for food. Do you eat meat? If so, then you agree in practice. Even if not, eating meat is a majority practice ... infanticide is not. Why is that? Are you suggesting (really) that there is no difference between eating Chik-fil-a, and killing a two year old human being? It seems to me that by your torrent of non-human examples you are obscuring moral practices and choices (including those of your own) rather than clarifying them in any way. If you have an argument at all, it is one that inadvertently sanctions all. quote: How could killing a newborn save a mother's life?? or a two year old? The difference (which you aren't acknowledging) is that with a pregnant mother, the fetus can sometimes be the certain death of both mother and child. And obviously, it is better to save one life than none. quote: The difference you are not admitting to is the concept of just punishment. And whether you agree with it or not, the majority of humanity has felt it to be sometimes mitigating of the moral principle to preserve an individual's life. Still there is a world of difference between a serial killer, and an unborn infant guilty of no wrong. And even if you are against the killing of a guilty human being (allow me use an a fortiori argument) how much more wrong must it be to kill an innocent human being? quote: When did I ever say it was okay to do that? Have we ever discussed my views of various war scenarios, or even of war in general? I would certainly never justify war carte blanche. quote: Not sure about that. Though it might be okay for the authorities to do so if they know he is. You are making two mistakes with these kinds of comparisons. 1) In most cases abortion is not so morally ambiguous as the intentionally ambiguous cases you mention and 2) The unborn child has no guilt, malice, or danger to the lives of others. quote: I've already admitted ambiguity exists wherever morality meets real-life-decisions. But your examples have been so radically different from anything like actual abortions, that I'm not sure you can (by using such examples) make an argument that moral absolutism is "unsustainable". quote: The reason I have asked you that, is because you (seeming to accept the humanity of the unborn) find certain cases of abortion as abhorrent (to use your own words). Either you permit what is abhorrent because of its violation of human rights, or you draw some lines somewhere. To refuse to draw a smaller circle (in this case) is to certainly draw a larger one. I don't mind you drawing the lines a different place, as much as criticizing someone for drawing them at all ... when in such a case, not to decide to limit someone, is unavoidably to decide to limit someone else even more (and in this case the most severe kind of limitation). I also think it would be immoral to have a fixed position for "all circumstances". quote: Alright, Let's talk about the different psychological impacts ... and how you feel that should apply to the abortion question. Let me hear your thoughts, and I will respond. quote: I have not been unwilling to discuss the psychology of the mother, if that's what you mean. I'm only insisting that the emotional distress of a mother does not warrant the taking of a human life. This is always true, but especially so if there are alternatives to address that emotional distress. quote: What does this have to do with abortion? Should she have been "put out of her misery" by someone's choice other than her own? Her life was, and should have been, protected by law from others even through her sad years of suffering. Not all in life have a happy one ... but I'm more than certain that all would have wanted the opportunity to try. I'm not praising suicide here ... but the key point here is that it was her own will (not another's) which determined her end. I want you to know I don't speak flippantly here on the matter of such real and personal tragedy. But since you brought it up, I thought I should respond. I am very sorry to hear of such suffering for you and your family. quote: It seems you have been asking just that. What is the middle position then which you have not yet described? quote: Okay, maybe you have begun to describe it. Why less than 24 but more than 8, if you don't mind my asking? quote: What legal ground would there be to deny a second or third abortion? quote: I'm assuming this tribunal would be obligated to refuse for anything outside the exceptions you give below? Or would the "tribunal" be sovereign in their decision? Remember that even judges only make rulings based upon law. What would be the guiding factor of the tribunal? quote: The problem is, it will not be possible if abortions are freely allowed for "coerced" marriages, and not allowed for young mothers who say they didn't know what they really wanted in life, and have now changed their minds about their mate, or about being a mother. If the right-to-life of the unborn is violated because of something like a person's feelings about their marriage ... then it will be legally challenged and trumped in any number of circumstances, since you have opened the door to complete subjectivity. quote: I did explain that your examples either involved animal life, or persons themselves guilty of murder or posing a real danger to the lives of others. At the very least I've shown that all these examples are radically different from an in untero human being who has done nothing and can do nothing to harm another life. Though slightly altered according to the ground we've covered, I would like to ask you again: Where, outside abortion, does a non-life-threatening situation take precedence over the life of another innocent (legally) human being? quote: (smile). I happy that we can agree on this much. quote: I hear where you are coming from ... Yet, as I explained to Bob, I don't accept that the legal protection of the unborn, and compassionate collaboration with pregant women are mutually exclusive. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Heavens Stephen! You'll have to give me a few days to get myself together on this again. I'll see what I can do over the weekend. I hope you are well. Best. M |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, No problem. Look how long it took me to reply to you. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, "Infanticide" by definition is "murder of an infant soon after its birth." The definition is from The Oxford American Dictionary. You attempt to conflate two things, perhaps without being aware that there is a difference. You know that the two of us disagree. It is not me that you need to convince, however. Even if you convince me of the correctness of your position, this does you no good. You must convince the woman who feels the need to have an abortion. I am attempting to tell you why many of the things you say don't work. Even though I believe that many of the things you say are wrong, I'm not trying to tell you that they are wrong here. I am trying to tell you that for the most part women in crisis — many but by no means all of them — are not interested or moved by these arguments. You may make as logical a case as you can for the separate humanity of the child in the womb from the mother, but many women do not experience this separation on the most concrete and physiological of levels. They experience they children as part of them. They experience the child through the mechanism of sense that allows them to feel movements of muscles and internal sensations: proprioception; and that sense tells them that the child is an internal part and extension of themselves. Stephanos: quote: Common sense does not substitute for fact, which is on occasion contrary to common sense. In a vacuum a pound of lead does not fall faster than a pound of feathers. Drop a bullet and shoot a bullet in a straight line and they both hit the ground at the same moment. If you're traveling at three quarters of the speed of light and strike a match, the light travels away from you at the speed of light in all directions, yet light cannot travel faster that c. If you can't say how many abortions were done before they became legal, you cannot say how few were done either. If I am denied the right to say it is common sense that there were this many, you have at the same stroke deprived yourself of the right to say how few, and taken the right to appeal to common sense away from both of us. Each of us feels we have common sense on our side; neither of us can prove it. in fact, during the potato famine in Ireland, and odd economic law was recognized to account for the fact the potato consumption went up on a per capita basis, even as supplies plummeted. Don't ask me to explain or name it. It's just one of those non-common sense things to needs to be figured out with more detailed thinking. By the way, a medical abortion is reasonably safe and secure. You compare it to removal of an appendix, which may for all I know be much less dangerous. I compare it to what I remember from high school and college, when abortion was not legal and not freely available, and where it was frequently done by non-medical personnel and there were frequent perforations and infections. I knew several women in college and graduate school who had horror stories to tell of illegal abortions. The stories were frequent. Stephanos: quote: I certainly do believe it is a woman's right to abort. For you to say that my reason is that is making an attribution that is incorrect. You assume that I cannot wish to better the lives of women in more than a single way. You believe that I think that abortion is a good in itself. And you believe that I think that women choose abortion for the sheer fun of it, and that if their legitimate worries and fears were addressed, they would still opt for an abortion. If I read this correctly, and I may not, then you have misread me. I do believe women should have the right to have a safe abortion. I also believe that many fewer would exercise that right if they felt safe in their relationships, able to feel that they might make a career for themselves, might take decent care of their children and felt that they were persons of value. Because these issues are often in doubt with pregnant women, a significant proportion of them feel it a bad idea to bring children into the world. If these issues are addressed, fewer of them would be as likely to exercise that option. I think that some women will always exercise it. Those women should not be exposed to a greater risk of death than necessary for their decision. They may make a different decision at some later time. If they are dead or sterile, this would probably be a little bit more difficult for them, unless this would be your intention, to kill or maim tomorrows potential mothers for deciding they don't want to be mothers today. Whatever these potential mothers have to worry about, in that case, if you pretend you don't have something to consider here, I can only say you live in a much simpler world than I do. Almost everything I do causes suffering someplace or other, and I can only try to love other folks the best I can and try to offer compassion to them and to myself. quote: There is is, of course: You and me. This isn't about you and me. This is about a woman with a something in her belly. You and I go through a battle in linguistics about what that something is. Blah de blah de blah blah blah. The woman is stuck first of all with the physical experience. It is personal. It is a flood of hormones and then a flood of sensation that gets more differentiated as time goes on. It takes a while before it gets other than personal, and the relationship between mother and fetus is symbiotic. You've got enough biology, probably more than I do, to know what symbiotic means. If you want to call the fetus a child at this point, you are anthropomorphizing a symbiote. Even that doesn't particularly matter; it's what you and I would bat back and forth in a discussion. The woman's experience would still mostly be internal, though by this time there would probably be lots of social interaction telling her what to think and feel and do about her internal body experience. We need women here to talk to us both about the actual experience of pregnancy., not something you or I will know firsthand. But there’s a catch here. You remember your Maslow, don't you? I’m talking about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Basically, Maslow says that people take care of (and probably experience) more basic needs first, before they begin to experience or consider more advanced needs. Whether or not I can feed my family tends to come before whether I can give money to Oxfam. Whether I am warm enough to survive till morning tends to trump whether or not I can feed my family right now. Whether I can breathe trumps whether on not I can get warm enough to survive till morning. There may be exceptions, but I think Maslow’s pretty well got us folks nailed with these observations. For a great part of pregnancy, the experience seems to originate in a lot of the women that I’ve counseled, in the area of bodily integrity and personal safety range. As delivery gets closer, of course, the baby becomes more of a separate person to her. The place where this thing originally experienced as part of me, then it, becomes a child and a person differs from woman to woman. With some women, there is a level in which the child will always remain an it, even after birth, in my experience. They never succeed in investing it with personhood. Sometimes the bond with the father or other family members or — yes, Stephanos, a church — can overcome this. Sometimes the mother never succeeds in establishing a distinction between herself and the child, even after birth. Sometimes things are wonderful. A lot of women have a good sense of what they are bringing the child into. And instead of the big resounding yes we like to think all women feel when they are pregnant, they feel a big resounding no. I do happen to think they have a right to say this, You don’t. That’s our disagreement. My motivations for disagreeing with you are, I happen to think, beyond the scope of the discussion. You haven’t believed them in the past, or think they are wrong. My motives, because they are mine, have to meet enough of my own approval to make it into action. If they don’t meet yours, I am sad because I like you, but I have to live with myself pretty much all the time. I am sorry, I respect you. But I can live with my disagreement. The women that you are not reaching, however, should matter to you more than I do. It may be worth your while to ask yourself why they are not in agreement with you. Why they have not been in agreement with you when the laws were against them and when abortions were neither safe nor legal nor affordable and were even less supported by public opinion than they are today. Should you wish to keep up your current political strategy — and I see no reason why you would change it; it’s what you believe in; it’s what you think is right — the question still remains. Indeed, should you succeed, the question will remain, because women will continue to seek abortions. I will skip the comments about the consequences to those women other than to note that there will be consequences and you know what I believe them to be. You will still need to understand the thing, understand where it comes from, and understand why it continues to happen should you actually wish to affect the situation. should you wish actually to alter the situation. quote: Thank you for telling me what I think. I assume that your clarity about what goes on inside my head probably extends to what goes on inside the head of other people around you. Nobody has to change a wet diaper in your house, because you’re there ahead of time? There are never any disagreements because you anticipate them? You are a millionaire because you can read the market trends? Perhaps you can tell me why I am having this conversation with you, since you already know what my response will be? If you could make this point with a woman who will have an abortion and make it stick, I would be impressed. In fact this piece of rhetoric that you are tossing at me is merely insulting to me in that you believe you have some understanding of my motives. Sorry Stephanos, but in this case you don’t, though I know that you mean well and that your are trying hard. You are addressing some “to whom it may concern” opponent who does not think the way I do. I am not even an opponent. If you want to have a debate about the nature of when a fetus is a human being, I’m the wrong guy. I have an opinion which I know better than to confuse with fact, and I won’t assert it as such. About infanticide, my opinion tends to go with the actual definition of infanticide I quoted earlier. That’s a coincidence; I would have the same notion even if it didn’t. Birth seems a reasonable marker for me. It’s certainly the first time I’ve ever met any child face to face, certainly the first time I’ve ever held, or touched or smelled one. Laws against infanticide seem reasonable to me for those reasons; it’s personal for me. Women happen to be responsible for most of the child beatings and child deaths of kids between birth and five years of age. Men seem to be responsible for most of those later on. I understand that you don’t agree about infanticide. I happen to think that infants are social creatures and a fetus is a symbiote. An infant pulls money from the parents’ pockets, a fetus pulls calcium from the mother’s bones and teeth. An infant can give a parent warm feelings inside, a fetus can give the mother heartburn and gas. There’s an actual difference on which the level of these events happen. Whatever I happen to think about this doesn’t particularly matter, I have never decided that I should get an abortion. It does matter what a pregnant woman things and feels about these things and about the social matrix into which the potential infant is born. I call it a potential infant. The pregnant woman can and will call it whatever she wants to call it. You keep talking to me as though you had to convince me. You don’t. I already disagree with you. I have some areas of overlap, probably, but basically we differ. You don’t actually have an argument with me though because you know I disagree. What I’m asserting, though, is that you aren’t addressing the actual concerns of pregnant women likely to make a decision to have an abortion. And the response I’m getting is about my thinking about whether or not my position about whether a woman should get an abortion or not is correct. It doesn’t matter if I’m correct or not; what matters is the woman making the decision. It’s not me, it’s the mother. It’s not me, it’s the mother. It’s not me, it’s the mother. Respectfully, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Bob, as I've already mentioned ... My desire to see abortion become illegal, is not an attempt to change a woman's mind, but to protect the lives of the unborn. Do I desire to change a woman's mind through social helps? Absolutely. We are not in disagreement here. What I've told you is that legal protection of the unborn and helping pregnant mothers in crisis are not incompatible. My arguments about the humanity of the fetus are not for those who will not be moved by them. Though I personally think that when the humanness of the fetus is not intentionally obscured in counseling settings, that many would indeed have a change of heart on the matter. And though you've tended to state things starkly, like suggesting that someone's position either "works" or "doesn't work", I would remind you that many late term abortions have already been prevented through legislation. quote: This is where your argument is thinnest. The internal residing of the fetus, and the woman's perception of pregancy does not change biological reality. I've never met a woman who mistook for long the "quickening" of fetal movement for her own intestinal peristalsis. Technology also has closed the gap even more with ultrasounds that can convey great detail to the mother. If you are only saying that the mother is sometimes mistaken about whether there is a human being inside her, then education is in order. If you are suggesting some quasi-mystical union or uniqueness of perception that justifies the killing of an unborn child simply because it resides "inside" the mother, then you have no real argument. For if subjectivity or unique point-of-view is no justification of other wrongs legislated against, then I don't see how it applies to abortion. quote: Do you really believe that consumerized abortion sold as a commodity, which obscures the human nature of the fetus, would result in the same amount of abortions if it were not allowed? If you say yes to this, though neither of us have stats, I've made my point and there's probably nothing else to say on that. But even if I granted such a stretch of imagination, it would still be wrong to sanction and help the destruction of unborn human beings. quote: I was actually juxtaposing abortion with an appendectomy, pointing out that one involves the removal of a non-essential organ, while the other involves the termination of a human life. As far as I know, medically speaking, both have medical risks, but are reasonably safe ... for the mother at least. Yes I imagine that illegal abortions were and would be less safe. I would also say that it is common sense that self-interest would make such appointments less than they would be with legalized abortion. quote: I believe none of those things about you. But as we discuss abortion rights, you also need to honestly address abortions done for reasons such as birth-control or Gender selection. When you grant women a "right" to abort for hard times because it is (allegedly) only their body, you grant all of them this right for any reason. quote: We agree on something! What we don't agree on is whether doing so is incompatible with legal protection of unborn human beings. quote: So those who want abortion to be illegal are responsible for killing and maiming .. for injuries done in the pursuit of illegal activity? Bob, I am not for withholding medical treatment of women who are injured in this way. I am for the preservation of their lives. The suggestion you made about responsibility for this is far over the line. quote: Where is your compassion for the unborn? Before this thread is done, I'll attempt to describe some abortion procedures and how they bear upon the life and experience of the unborn ... for the purpose of asking whether they are compassionate. quote: That's because this is a debate forum ... Blah de blah de blah blah blah blah blah. It would stand to reason that I am addressing you when I am addressing you. But you're right that its not about you and me. But you're wrong that its only about a woman with a something in her belly. Obfuscatory language does not negate what is known about that "something". quote: Of course I know what symbiotic means. But you have not made any argument how this changes anything. An infant is also a fully dependent being ... same concept different roof. quote: Not a "child" in the developmental sense, but a human organism nevertheless. If you want to call the fetus a 'something' at this point you are dehumanizing a human being. quote: For all your aim at being holistic, can't you see that a mother's internal body experience is only a part of the equation? Do you deny any experience of the fetus? quote: Of course I am familiar with Maslow. Could you explain to me in not so vague fashion, how a fetus should threaten the base of his pyramid for a mother? How can this symbiotic little human threaten her basic needs? Up until now you've only referred to things like "sense" and "perception" and the psychological ... things hardly descriptive of the most basic of needs according to Maslow. quote: Underlines mine. This only illustrates my point. You have been referring to the very needful aspect of addressing the psychology and social situation of the Mother. But it is all based in perception, even after birth. Her perception should not be the basis of whether another human being is legally protected ... pre or post birth. quote: Only you haven't given a substantial argument as to why they can't also say this about their infants or toddlers. quote: Bob do you know one whit about what I've done, or haven't done, to alter the situation? I appreciate your fatherly role of urging me to understand the social phenomenon, and even to reach out to hurting individuals. My only point here, is that social ministry to one group is not antithetical to legal protection of another. I understand that in a desperate world, neither your approach nor mine can be totally effective. quote: If birth is a reasonable marker to you, then the issue of humanity IS your issue. Why is that a reasonable marker, in light of what progressive science has shown us about the unborn? Does that mean you are for laws that protect abortion survivors immediately after birth? quote: The "Only if I've seen it" approach? Shall I describe in detail the gestation process and tell you what a fetus is like? The information is there about an objective reality even without your subjective direct experience. quote: And? The very news of conception can give a mother warm feelings. A living child can be regarded as no better than an insect. You are still floundering in subjective attitudes ... not making any difference beyond the purely arbitrary. quote: Only you haven't established the difference as significant or consequential to the comparison of abortion to infanticide. quote: Only you can't so easily call it a potential human being. An infant is only a potential toddler after all. quote: What are those concerns Bob? I'll address them. I think they definitely should be. As an enthusiastic proponent of adoption, and an adoptive parent of two special needs children, I have addressed the situation in a very personal way. The unborn should still be legally protected. quote: It's not just the mother, it's the baby too. It's not just the mother, it's the baby too. It's not just the mother, it's the baby too. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I wrote a lengthy response to at least parts of this post. It never appeared, and I don't know why. I'm sorry, I don't know what happened, but I'm nervous something similar might happen to other lengthy posts of mine. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yeah, My personal opinion is the only poeple I knew that had abortions did so 4-5 times a year. The truth is there is something inherently wrong when poeple think it is ok to not take responsibility for their actions. If A woman gets raped, or doesn't use protection, or whatever there are things we can do such as go in to the doctors and force a period, because conception doesn't happen for like two days. I wont get into details, but it ain't pretty. But much much better then how a abortion would feel. human life is so important, I do not understand how a unborn child can be de- classed to the level of parasite, something that only win-ems could do to the yahoos. -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, Mention IUDs to your friends who are using abortion as conception control; have them talk to their physicians about the pro and con aspects of IUDs. Abortion is not a good substitute for birth control. Multiple yearly abortions may well be a signal of other problems that need addressing, don't you think? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Bob They were my roommates and even though I told them they should think about birth control they would get angry and say it was their body. It is very irritating and If I wasn't catholic, I think after living with them I would have been pro life. -Juju |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Bob, Sorry that happened. I've had computer issues like that before. One solution I've found (when you've poured heart and soul into a lengthy reply) is to simply copy the text and paste it into a text editor/ word processor file, and save it, before you submit it. That way you have a simple back up. This is a bit baffling though. Though I've had the text disappear after hitting the "back" button, I've never had it not post after I've hit the "submit reply" button. Did the confirmation notice ever come up? If not (due to server problems) you can usually just hit your back button and the text should still be there. But if you did get the confirmation, I can't imagine why your text didn't appear. I promise I didn't hack it out. Ron would hack out my Gall Bladder if I did. PS) What exactly do you mean about being nervous about other lengthy posts? Do you mean future ones, as in having difficulty posting them, or ones already posted? Given the usual wide diversity of beliefs/views on Pip, I couldn't imagine anyone intentionally removing them. Unless of course the post violates the guidelines or something (I've had that happen to mine before ... we all step over the Pip line sometimes) I may be misunderstanding what you were trying to say though. Just rambling ... Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, It sounds like a dreadful experience. I'm not Catholic; I like the religion a lot, though as you might guess, I have some disagreements with it. Not being Catholic, and after hearing your experience with these two featherheads, and being prochoice, I've come out of the experience as being anti-idiocy. But that's me. I guess the question where we part ways is where is the point where folks abuse choice. I'd say that having serial abortions inside the space of a year suggests that they haven't thought through the nature of abortion in terms of surgical risk and potential consequences for long term reproductive health. And that leaves the notion of morality out of it. Morality should be included in a way that fits with the woman's personal ethics and morality as part of the overall decision. At least I think so. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Juju I'm so terribly sorry Calm Seas Fair Winds John . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Still on the case Stephen. Just trying to create enough temporal space, or "time" if you prefer. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
moonbeam, PLEASE take your time. I don't have the time for full-time debate/ discussion if you know what I mean. Stephen |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
There was four room mates. at one time three of them thought they were pregnant -juju -Juju |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Got there in the end Stephen! quote: Good, I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm glad you agree that the moral principle of "protecting an innocent human life" also falls within that qualification. quote: Where have I ever made an unqualified statement to the effect that I do not advocate laws to protect unborn babies? Quite the reverse in fact, I have consistently made the point that in many circumstances abortion should be illegal, and even when legal, should be discouraged, and other alternatives explored. However, this discussion is getting too strung out and fragmented, and we're in danger of focussing too much on the surface details of where we disagree, as opposed to the wider points of agreement or disagreement which underlay them. In abortion debate the moral arguments and the legal often get entangled to the detriment of both of them, so I just want to step back a moment, try to separate them, and, using the quotes (from you) above and my replies as a starting point, endeavour to reiterate in a more straightforward way, where I'm coming from. First of all my personal view of what we've been calling the "moral" position. I asked you all those questions simply to try and establish whether your own moral position imparted some special significance to human life above all other life, and, though you didn't address the invitation to comment upon what IS human, it appears that it does. The relevance to abortion is, I would have thought, obvious in that we are exploring the circumstances under which lives are terminated by the actions of other lives. But we'll come to that later. First of all let's concentrate on this question of the taking of life. Interestingly you asked me: "Are you suggesting (really) that there is no difference between eating Chik-fil-a, and killing a two year old human being?" I suppose, before starting to answer that, I ought to ask you for more precision. What, for instance, did you mean by "difference". Still, I think I know what you mean. You are basically suggesting that it is more generally acceptable to our society to kill a chicken than a two year old human. I obviously accept that. I do not however necessarily agree that as a general proposition, viewed from different perspectives, it is true that killing a chicken is more acceptable than killing a human. Take the planet "Aviana" for instance. There the population would be utterly horrified if a feathered creature was killed to save a mere bald crawling mammal. The point here is that all life is valued to one degree or another by some other life (if necessary you can take this right down from the species level to the personal level to prove its validity). It is perfectly understandable that you sit here in your skin on your planet with your god and reach the conclusion that you are the life form that should be last in line for the fast food processing unit of the universe. But then there are lots of other scaley, feathered and amoeba-like Stephen's out there who probably think that they also should not be served up with a plate of McFries. The only rational objective conclusion is that all life forms are "equal". We could get into a discussion of the definition of life form, but we won't, because it does not harm the logic to simply admit all "things". From that platform we can move on to look at some of the issues we were discussing. In this context the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are a bit distracting as they usually lead right back to religious or social context, so instead I'll use "desirable" and "undesirable". We could get terribly entangled in, no doubt, fascinating debate at this point, but for the sake of brevity (and because I believe it, and this is all just my opinion) I'm going to assume that causing hurt or death to another being is always equally undesirable. (If it still really bothers you that I'm lumping a chicken in with a human baby here, you might like to revisit my question about the Neanderthal, the "what is human?" issue). So now I'm in the unenviable position of needing to reconcile the idea that it's undesirable to kill any other life with the myriad actions I perform each day like walking through a orchard, or burning a rotting log, or eating the Sunday roast or wearing a condom, or having an abortion. The fact is that I perform undesirable acts in exterminating the life I exterminate each day. It gives me no pleasure to think that I'm killing wasps as I step through an orchard, or frying woodlice as I burn the log, and to that extent alone it's undesirable in my view. I reconcile this, or to put it another way, live with it, by, I suspect, a series of very complex, and probably Machiavellian, processes in my mind which loosely amount to what you earlier termed "conscience". All sorts of concepts come into play here: The concept of mitigation The concept of recompense and amelioration The concept of least harm (between different courses) The concept of unknowing or ignorance The concept of diminished responsibility The concept of mistake or error The concept of repentance How these interplay, the weights and emphasis on each and the way they are employed, to reconcile action to conscience, is determined mainly I think by upbringing, social background, life experiences, health, wealth etc, and maybe some biological and chemical inputs too. So every time I kill something (knowingly) I accept that what I have done is undesirable and pacify my conscience with an amalgam of reasons, justifications, excuses, apologies, reparations etc, such that I continue to be able to live with myself reasonably peacefully. Obviously there comes a point where many decisions to kill become "easy" simply because the circumstances are repetitive and once the palliative is tried, tested and accepted over and over, it becomes instinctive. Driving down a bug infested highway would fall into this category. Although I try to avoid moths in my headlights I have generally accepted that it is impractical to do so without endangering other motorists. Similarly I will usually take the line that braking or swerving for animals and birds is too risky in congested fast moving traffic. But, to illustrate the complexity of this (and to move closer to abortion, you will be relieved to hear) I remember once driving down a road at 60mph with a guy on my tail for many miles. Despite the fact that I was doing the speed limit or even slightly above he persisted in tailgating following far too close. The road bent sharply and there ahead a mother duck was leading a line of ducklings across the tarmac. There was no swerving to avoid, it was simply brake or kill. In some ways I'd like to say I had no time to think, but the truth is I did in fact have sufficient time to deliberately decide to do emergency stop, knowing full well the guy behind would collide with me and we'd possibly both be injured, but that at the slower speed we'd done round the bend it would be unlikely to be fatal. This is in fact what happened. I suffered mild whiplash, and he had quite severe chest and facial injuries (no airbags in those days). The ducklings escaped unscathed. I could quite easily have prevented our injuries, yet I remain quite comfortable in my decision given all the circumstances. I wondered afterwards if I had known for instance that he was dashing to save a life himself whether it would have made any difference, and I supposed it would, but rationalised that we use all the data we have at the moment given to us to make a decision, and that if the decision is right for the only possible moment it can be made, then it is right. So as you can see Stephen I really don't have a problem with putting human well-being at risk in order to preserve other life in the "right" circumstances, by which I mean circumstances where that combination of factors allows me to make peace with conscience. And to go on from this I freely admit that I'd find it easier to kill a housefly than a butterfly, easier to kill a dog than a cat, easier to kill a vulture than a nightingale, easier to kill a rabbit in the night than in daylight, easier to eat a fillet steak than kill an Aberdeen Angus, easier to destroy the unseen and unknown to preserve the known and loved. You see, constant prioritization, evaluation and decision. Accordingly I do not view abortion as "different" in the way you imply I do - it's just another area in which conscientious priority applies. However there IS an empirical difference, which you identified, in that I cannot immediately think of a situation other than abortion where in a non physical life threatening situation it is potentially an acceptable option to take the unacceptable step of killing another human being. But, frankly, so what? All this proves is that there may be only one situation where it is potentially acceptable to me. But I guess this singularity is what makes abortion a battleground, and particularly brings into focus the conflict between people like me, who believe that the "rules" of morality are not largely dictated by some deity, and those who do. So to be absolutely plain there is no question in my mind that it is undesirable to kill a zygote, human or otherwise. But being a human zygote does not entitle it, in my view, to some exclusive bypassing of that difficult equation which the mind has to perform in reaching a decision acceptable to conscience. Sure, being human, and being evaluated by humans it is always likely to get a better hearing than say a rabbit zygote being evaluated by humans instead of other rabbits, but nevertheless it must be evaluated - the worth of allowing it to live weighed against the disadvantages of so doing. Of course it's unacceptable to kill a wasp because it's annoying me, but I possibly might. Of course it's unacceptable to kill a kitten because it's annoying me, but I never would. Of course it's unacceptable to kill an unborn baby, but, if I became convinced that the mother was likely to suffer as my sister-in-law's sister did without an abortion, I am absolutely certain that my conscience could reconcile it at an early enough stage in the pregnancy, i.e. when the zygote was around the status of "wasp" rather than "kitten". And talking about suffering, into that decision of conscience must come the question of how we define "life". This is another area where I often find myself at odds with mainstream religion and the medical fraternity, who imo take the sanctity of breath and blood to ridiculous and uncompassionate levels. There are obviously plenty of arguments here about euthanasia, assisted suicide, the right of the individual to determine his/her own fate etc etc, we'll leave all those aside. I'll simply say that I believe that there is a point (points) where the fact of being able to breath is not sufficient compensation for the pain and suffering (mental or physical) of being able to draw breath. I also believe that this state is reached in all beings, and in our human society is more prevalent than we care to accept, being suppressed by social convention and expectation, medical imperatives and possibly religious pressures. There is a kind of shame or disgrace involved in wanting or choosing to die. So while those in favour of a complete ban on abortion may refer (sometimes rather disparagingly) to the mother's "emotional state" as if it could never be of consequence set against the life of a zygote, I prefer to maintain a mind sufficiently open to the possibility that a mother may, by being forced to go to term, suffer a non-life for decades on end, culminating, as my relative's did, in a physical suicide. So much for the moral position, now, a quick look at my views about abortion law. I marginally favour legality for abortion. I say marginally because on balance I think there are far too many abortions and some abortions that are performed would not be performed if it was illegal. This is an argument for absolute illegality which however ignores the fact that even if numbers of abortions were reduced somewhat, those that were performed would be performed in very hazardous conditions, threatening the lives of both mother and zygote. My own experiences of dealing with the non-medical aspects of abortion cases, and particularly handling situations where an individual was in conflict with family or friends over a prospective abortion bear this out. I frankly shudder to think what the outcome of these would have been had the families in question had the weight of the law behind them. Then again there are always going to be girls caught in horrendous social situations where nothing is going to prevent them from trying to "dispose" of the evidence (the baby) except possibly rapid and sympathetic counselling. This they are not going to get if abortion is illegal. They will simply travel, as thousands of Irish girls do each year, to a place where abortion is legal. Failing that they will opt for other methods of termination. The incidence of unsafe abortion world wide is incredibly high (about 50% of all abortions I think) and probably understated because of the problems with data collection. And the vast majority of unsafe procedures are a direct result of the determination of women to risk abortion coupled with the lack of suitable facilities due to either specific legal sanctions or unavailability. Ten's of thousands of women die annually because of unsafe abortions. A blanket ban on abortion is not going to suddenly educate men into not behaving badly, nor is it going to overnight, change the views of those who would disown a daughter for becoming pregnant. All it will do is drive thousands of girls towards practises that will threaten their lives and of course that of the zygote. I'm therefore quite convinced that a framework of restricted legality, with compulsory counselling and special tribunals, is the best way to save the lives of both mothers and babies. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
0_o -Juju |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
No, Jen, I take issue with Obama's moral integrity, not because he doesn't agree with me, but because not being sure of when life begins himself, he would still condone the practice of abortion at all. If someone were convinced in their own mind that life doesn't begin until birth, then I could at least understand their approval of abortion. That's not the case with Obama, according to his own words. If I were not sure, I would err on the side of life, and not risk terminating a life. That is what should be considered above our pay grade. Well, I think that it still a life being taken in abortion, though I don't think it is at conception but I am pro choice. I believe in women having the right to choose with their own bodies. I also don't think someone who is raped should be forced to carry a child to term. There is a difference between personal responsibility and forcing young girls to have a baby, somethign that would be unhealthy for the baby and mother on a long term scale and unhealthy for the young mother emotionally in any case. I think in some cases its the nessecary evil- and that a law making it legal or illegal wouldn't be able to do the women affected justice. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Isn't taking a life killing, rhia? Doesn't the baby have a right over its own body? It isn't the woman's body that is being killed, but the life of the baby within her. Why should she have the right to choose to do that? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
SHe should have the right to do that because the loss of the mother to the people she cares about if she faces trauma emotionally, mentally or physically would be stronger than the baby. I think its sad and I don't want it to happen if it can be avoided but I won't force a woman to carry a child to term when she can't for whatever reason handle the child. Denise, if women don't have abortions and carry their child to term- are you going to take care of all the unwanted children? The children who might end up on the street and then end up ware housed int he public schools that are plagued with issues and that aren't helping anyone by their policies. Are you going to pay for the foster care system to be better? Make the system better and work to make the world safer for single mothers and young mothers and I will be less able to live with abortions. I don't think its right but I think its very wrong to make women who were raped carry to term the child. They may become depressed or suffer from serious issues because of it- if they kill themselves then the baby and themselves will be lost. I care more about the mother's life because she is already alive and has a lot of people who care about her. Guys need to take a lot more responsibility for the girls they knock up- they need to commit to support the child if they want a say in whether she has an abortion. Sex education needs to be taught in schools in a way that works because right now its not. Responsibility is a lesson that isn't really taught in schools- my high school deals with these issues but most don't and it needs to be handled. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The baby is already alive, too, rhia. I personally can't justify abortion unless it is to save the physical life of the mother. Conditions such as depression and poverty can be addressed with less drastic measures than killing an innocent life. There are waiting lists of couples wanting to adopt. I believe that is the most viable and moral option for women who can't mentally or financially take care of their children. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
And I ask again- Will you take care of the children who get abandoned? The children who are on the street and have nowhere to go and nobody to go to. Will you take care of the children abused or beaten by their foster parents? Will you go and check up on people ot make sure their kids aren't being harmed? What will you personally do to fix the system? You can't just pass these kids off to someone else because these kids grow up and they grow up in a bad situation and then add to the cycles of violence- that doesn't mean I want all kids involved in that dead but allowing kids to grow up who will have really awful lives when the mother is hurting and can't bear to have them isn't right. Would you force a woman who was raped to carry a child to term? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Is that the only option, rhia, abortion or future abuse of those children and future criminal activity by those children? I'd have to see some sort of study to back up that contention. I don't believe that killing a baby in the womb is the answer to any social issue. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Well, if the mother doesn't want the child do you reallly thinks she is going to be the greatest parent? Also if the woman is raped ad has the child she is going to look at the child and always have the memory of the rape- she won't be able to heal while she is carrying the child to term. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Rhia The memory is going to be there anywhere. Adding the killing of the unborn child on top of it is more likely to multiply the sorrow when the mother remembers it. But in any case, the emotions of a mother are no justification for taking a life of a child away. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
The mother may become depressed and kill herself taking away the child's life and her own. Yes it does because emotions play into wellfare and here its a important part of that. The memory is going to be more painful if she has to carry the child because while carrying the child to term she will be unable to heal from the rape because she has to live with the product of it all the time. Rape is a really traumatic thing and it scars without the woman being pregnant. I don't ask for you to have an abortion just for you to respect other peoples hoices. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I am pretty sure my room mates didn't get pregnant from rape. I think It was from not using protection in some of their wild parties -Juju |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Rhia, None of that is a given. The child at least has a chance of a good life if the mother at least tries or gives him/her up for adoption so someone else may. In any case, the mother herself has a chance and hope and truly may heal with time, with or without the child. But aborting the child does not even give the child a chance and a hope, let alone a remembrance that she gave the child a chance and a hope. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
The may heal but then she may not. The people in the mother's life will also be hurt if she has the child and then has to suffer from trauma and emotional difficulties. The mother could eventually have another child later in life- the people in her life can't easily replace her. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rhia, Are we to believe that killing the unborn, would help a woman to heal from rape? It's going to be hard either way ... period. Though I would suggest that its likely to be harder having to deal with the secret guilt of killing an innocent human being, on top of the trauma of rape. With all due sympathy to victims of rape ... the best bet is still to do the right thing, and put the child up for adoption. Is it reasonable to insist that someone would have to be willing to take care of all the unwanted children in the world before they can reasonably be against abortion?. I have adopted 2 unwanted children, only a drop in the bucket. What would you say to me? The point is, our current tax money is already being used for welfare, and other social services. And still more can be done. And still the lives of the unborn need the same kind of protection that we all take for granted. respectfully, Stephen (and Moonbeam ... I'll try to reply in a year or so. ) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Asking you to believe that an abortion would help a woman heal from rape may be too much to ask. I wouldn't ask it of you, because it isn't logical, and you are not somebody who needs to be convinced. The reality of the situation is that the woman has a conversation with herself about this sort of thing, and only with the greatest of good fortune do either of us get consulted at all. The process of what goes on in a woman's mind at these times is not something that she shares with a lot of people, but it is generally saturated with sadness, rage, desperation, revulsion and horror, to name a few of the emotions that have been shared with me. I like the wisdom of your comment: "It's going to be hard either way ... period." I am taking you out of context in the following statement, a bit. Please forgive me. But I happen to agree that, " the best bet is still to do the right thing," though I think that discovering what that think is may be different for different women. Certainly putting the child up for adoption may be a good way of doing things in some cases. quote: You don't have to be reasonable to be against abortion. I know that you want your discussions to be logically defensible, but there is really so much about this discussion that is not logical in both directions that I think it's too much to expect for a person to say that his position for or against abortion is founded on logic. I think logic is something that you reach for after your soul has informed you who and what you are about something like this. And logic is the bulwark you use to attempt to explain it to people who don't understand how strongly you feel. You're always tinkering with your logic. Your sense that this or that position is right stays pretty firm. If you change your mind, it's because something makes a different soul-sense to you. Somebody with a different position is able to say something that opens up a slightly different way of looking at things, and your point of view shifts on the facts that you already understood in the first place. Your being against abortion is fine. It's fine, and it's whole-hearted. Abortion is everybody's problem, even the problem of the women who decide to have them for reasons that I see as decent reasons and you don't believe are good enough reasons. Nobody actually wants to have abortions. Nobody loves abortions. Nobody wants to grow up to have one, or to have several. They are deeply difficult to anybody who has much of a sense of feeling about themselves. I was deeply impressed by the psychoanalyst Leston Havens who responded, when a patient said to him that he — the patient — didn't feel any pain. In fact, he didn't feel much of anything at all, emotionally speaking. And Havens responded by saying, "That's the worst sort of pain." I've know people who've had abortions like that. Juju wrote a posting about some women she knew who'd done that, but of course it's not limited to abortions, is it? It's the worst sort of pain. I try to remember that. What would I say to you? I'd tell you to stop saying how many kid's you've adopted. It's time to stop congratulating yourself on that and simply start enjoying it. If you keep mentioning them in discussions about abortion, you take away from the enjoyment you have in them and you start using them as resources in a debate. I'm already impressed, and I will continue to be, not by your charity but by your openness of soul and generosity of spirit. The Ram Bam said that Charity should be done in a way the the person who receives doesn't know he's received, and the person who's given doesn't know he's given. I should be so good someday as you are today. I love your compassion for the unborn. In doing family therapy, frequently, if you want to make the lives of the children better, you need to start by addressing the problems in the lives of the parents, who are then freed to become better parents and to help their children. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, but it does an awful lot of the time. I suspect that if you really want to make a difference in the lives of the unborn, you need to intervene in the lives of that unborn's parents and grandparents within a very short window of time. Neither of us like abortions, both of us would like to see them reduced. We have different notions about what's effective as a way of going about it, though. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I'm not congratulating myself ... sorry if it sounded so. And of course, I don't need to start "enjoying" my children, as I certainly do (a fact that is not in anyway affected by this debate). But I am deflating the argument "unless you're willing yourself, you shouldn't be against legalized abortion" ... a weak argument you yourself have seemed to forward in the past. As for the rest, we've already had an adequate exchange I think that covers it. I'll only add that no matter which way you dice it, a rape involves the violation of a life ... while a rape and subsequent abortion involves two. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-01-2008 11:36 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: Actually that would only be rational if all life forms were alike. To cut to the chase, moonbeam, I accept the supreme position of human life (rejecting of course, cruelty to animals for cruelty-sake) as Divine Revelation. At this point you will cry "foul" in the name of religion (which to you is dogmatically subjective). The strength of my position however is that most people agree in practice and conscience, regardless of their ideologies. And I'm really not interested in arguing abortion with a moral vegan, much less arguing against a hypothetical moral vegan. Not recognizing the special place of humanity in God's scheme, does not succeed to prove moral relativism. But since one's view on that is always presuppositional ... I'll appeal to democracy, that as a practice, there is no significant moral sense that killing animals for food is wrong. And as long as you eat Chik-fil-a (or the like), you only prove my point in practice. quote: "Desirable vs. undesirable" is an insufficient category for this kind of discussion. Though I'm quite aware that you feel that you have jumped from the frying pan of absolutes, into a simpler comfy explanation. You've still landed in the fire, since desirable can be reduced to personal preference or liking (on the level of malt-beverage versus coffee), in which case there is no real debate. And just because your category is reduced to that, it matters little if I conceded that taking life is "always undesirable". Even the Nazis might have said that the death camps were undesirable, in the sense of unpleasant and laborious. Still their refusal to see the Jew (among others) as human beings, provided them a higher ideal by which to justify even that which is undesirable. The protests of the Holocaust have nothing to do with whether what happened was "desirable". quote: But, frankly, you still haven't offered a convincing argument. The empirical weight is evidence that one's moral priority is skewed who would say that it is okay to kill an innocent human being, for a non-life-threatening situation. quote: You're right. I do believe there is a presuppositional clash here. I believe that those who do not recognize an ultimate authority on morals will be more likely to justify societal atrocities. (Though of course, I recognize the religious can and have erred here too, by getting the authority all wrong). The Philosopher Nietzsche wrote that when "God is dead" then morals would decay. Likewise, Dostoevsky, said that "If there is no God, all things are permitted". Do you disagree with them, and if so why? quote: Peter Singer (an atheist and moral relativist) supports infanticide in some cases. He provides evidence to me that the line will continue to move toward personal druthers, rather than any real criteria for rejection or acceptance, once absolutes are rejected. Where is the line for you for abortion and why? (This is the moral question, and not the legal) quote: Moonbeam! Hardly a shred of science-fiction, much less science, would support the idea of an unborn human being ever being at a stage other than earlier human ones. quote: You're the one who said not to go into Euthanasia right? Well even though I don't agree with it (and that is a seperate argument), I would gladly grant it to you for the sake of this argument ... and then point out that abortion is still far worse since Euthanasia involves both consent and a poor medical prognosis. Abortion involves no consent on part of the killed, and in most cases the best of prognoses. quote: You really attribute her mental condition to the mere birth of the child? Explain this to me again? In most cases (if not virtually ALL) having a child cannot be blamed for having a non-life. There are non-abortive alternatives to keeping the child. quote: Despite your certainty, I think that pregancy counselling in a non-abortion-providing setting, would be a live and inviting option in many cases ... where other options can be explored. quote: Did you say when abortions should specifically be illegal? I missed that part. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You keep wanting to approach this by logic. I don't think it's logical. I think it's visceral. I don't expect to sway you by logic here, though you are a very logical guy. In fact I don't expect to sway you at all. Somehow you seem to understand people who disagree with you about this as being very different than you or in basic disagreement about most of the attitudes that you voice. I simply don't think this is true. I think the conclusions may be different, but most of the attitudes I hear you voice, I also hear people voice who are pro-choice as well. Nobody loves abortion. Everybody wants it to be the last thing considered except for people who have very little contact with their feelings. The problems come in when we talk about other people having abortions and our right to substitute our judgements for theirs as to when the decision is appropriate. At that point a lot of us want to make the decision for other people and have loads of reasons why our opinion is better than the people who are involved directly. That is the point I believe that our trust in each other breaks down. The I know what you need and/or want better than you do point. Politically, I'm very skeptical of others making my decisions for me. Ethically, there's the question of whether on not the decision is mine to make or not. At one point the Popes were shocked to discover that Jewish theology hadn't stopped dead in its tracks with the death of Jesus, and declared Jews who read and believed in the teachings in the Talmud were in fact Heretics. The Jews thought they had the right to make decisions about their own theology, the popes thought they had the right to burn copies of the Talmud they found, and then, occasionally, the Jews who were found reading them. It's one of the ways the Inquisition got started. I have some feelings about the basic principles involved here. Myself, I suspect the founders would have been seriously startled to have heard their notions about Right to Life being applied to fetal life. They were far too secular to have take a position of that sort, and were far too aware of the uncertainties of pregnancy to have thought such a thing possible. Choosing Life, embracing it where possible they would have understood. Liberty they may have thought crucial, but not enough to insist on it for the blacks in this country; not at the expense of leaving the southern states out of the Union. And they knew better than to say that happiness was a Right, only that you should be entitled to pursue it. They also knew that the state should avoid hooking up with any particular religious dogma, including even a generic Christianity. Franklin went so far as to say that he thought he ought to go out looking for some Mosques to bring back. He was very specific. He wanted religion out of government, including religious prescriptions. I don't know myself that he was wrong. I think that they're fine personal guidelines, but for societies as a whole, I think they're trouble. So much for me. Anyway, I hope all is going well for you. Affectionately, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephen quote: No Stephen that is not right. My central point was that each life form may legitimately feel that it is superior. But that aside, even within our own species there are for instance differences in skin colour, physique etc, yet most people regard all humans as equal in the important meaning of the word. quote: Of course you do. And I respect your position. In a parochial sense it's quite a rational one, for it provides the human mind and body with a good deal of ease, and escape from having to confront the problems that arise when you take my view. quote: "Most people" fails on two counts as a convincing argument. First, most people on earth isn't "most people" - it's rather like a gaggle of geese sitting in their cosy little hut secure in the knowledge that most geese believe in the supremacy of geese, while in the woods just down the road the foxes take an entirely different view. Secondly, "most geese" used to believe in the supremacy of white geese over black geese. It didn't make them right. As for the moral vegan point. I see that you may feel such an argument might be a waste of time. Perhaps you are right. In fact you may very well be. The gap between us in terms of the sanctity we attach to human life (especially just conceived human life) may be so wide that it explains what effectively translates to a difference in nuance regarding the legal position. quote: You've place an emphasis on the words themselves which I didn't intend and simply dragged the debate back to ground level, when I was trying to, as it were, look from afar. Fine, use "right" and "wrong" if you want to, it doesn't detract from the fact that what you feel to be right and wrong may not be what IS right and wrong. quote: Ahh, now we get to it. Precisely so: "personal preference" if you must, a sense of what, as Bob puts it, is viscerally "right" in as universal sense as we humans are capable of feeling. And of course there is a debate. The debate between those who would construct what I previously called parochial moral absolutes, quite often "given" by a divinity(es) special to the race or species; and those who would simply endeavour to do what they believe to be right (or as I prefer "desirable"), guided, as I said before by no more than their developmental mix (social, environmental, economic, etc etc). The debate as to which approach is "correct", of course precedes any debate about, for instance, when a zygote is independently viable (which to me is pretty uninteresting). I admit it's a different debate, but in fairness it's the one I've tried to focus on throughout this thread, sorry if I misled you. quote: I totally disagree if by "god" they mean the traditional god's of mainstream religions worldwide. I absolutely believe that every human has the capacity to do good or ill and religion is just one factor in the mix that makes a character capable of whatever it is capable of. Much of the evidence I have seen at both a personal, society and national level, in both a contemporary and historical context points at "religion/god" being a real pain in the ass when it comes to warping human nature and creating in it the capacity for ill. Where do you want me to start!!!?? If however Dostoevsky meant "god" in a wider sense, and although I have read some of his books I can't remember the context, then perhaps I'd agree, in the sense that along with the mix of other factors in a human upbringing an instilling of a more spiritual outlook (as opposed to a material one) can, I believe, elevate human thought to a point where it is less likely to wish to cause harm. But this I believe has nothing whatsoever to do with the jehovah-like "ultimate authority" that you have in mind. It is more a maternal and gentle suggestion in early life that man (along with all other life) was not born a miserable sinner, does not have to be "saved", is quite worthy enough stand with the angels rather than gathering crumbs under tables, and is intuitively capable of perceptions beyond the grossly material. quote: I've already discussed personal preference, and why I believe it is an honest position rather than a dirty phrase. "Real criteria for rejection or acceptance" - most people in my observation don't need a god of the type you believe in for them to know intuitively what is acceptable and what isn't at any particular point in time and place. If you don't realise by now that I don't have "a line" - then you either haven't read or don't understand what I said. And while we're on lines, to re-iterate, my legal position follows from my moral one. I don't have "a line" there either. I gave the span of weeks which I did advisedly, but I suppose I'm now regretting mentioning an upper limit. My ideal legal system would cater for the circumstances of each case and react with a moveable line accordingly. quote: I was speaking metaphorically of course, pointing out that my "personal preference"! would be to kill an anonymous week old fertilized human egg rather than an anonymous 2 month old kitten. But, talking about (science) fiction, you'd do well to re-visit Swift, on the subject of human subjectivity and its ridiculousness (oops, that sounded bad, it wasn't personal ).quote: I wasn't talking about euthanasia. I too have many reservations about it. I was making a general point about social stigma, and also saying for the umpteenth time that being alive is more than about drawing breath. You keep asking me how I can justify killing a living zygote simply to give a mother "peace of mind". Unless you recognise that someone can be "killed" without having their bodily functions terminated we can go no further with the discussion in that area. quote: "mere birth of a child" - my turn to say Stephen!! Really, Stephen if you think that this is just about a baby popping out of a womb we are poles apart. At this point I guess I should say "how like a man", for the sake of cliche. There is nothing "mere" about the circumstances surrounding many young women arriving at a clinic I can assure you. When you write something like that I do wonder (with all respect) whether I'm talking to a person or a robot. Perhaps it's hard for you to understand what the circumstances of conception and the subsequent interaction with father, friends, family, doctor, therapist, school teachers, priest, doctors, maybe police, can do to a young girl's mental state, and how all that turmoil can be resolved into a point in time (the birth) and an entity (the baby), and magnified as a result. Non-abortive (in the sense of best option) counselling should of course always be there. But the non-abortive bit should not be supported by a big stick of illegality. If the counselling doesn't work the option of a legal abortion should be available (with caveats as already discussed) As I said before: no specificity on the time limit for illegality. Bands of time, with circumstances taken into account. M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If our mothers could still make the choice in the past, I don't think most of us would have much doubt about thinking it wrong if they were about to have an abortion instead of at least allowing us to be born. Indeed, we would probably all be against it if our own lives were threatened by it now. But we would not even have our lives right now if our mothers had made that choice. If you knew it would be your own life that had never made it out of the womb, or your wife's or husband's, I may hardly believe you would think it right and that the law should not defend your life or the life of your loved one. It should be no different just because it is someone else's life instead. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
For me this doesn't work Ess. I'd be prepared to give up my life even now if I thought it would save my wife of mother a lifetime of mental illness, and so much more so if I was a zygote without any comprehension of life or the outside world. Think "Sommersby", think beyond the "selfish gene". |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Wishing not to be killed is selfish? Taking away life is no way to deal with depression. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will—merely that their effects can be accurately described as if they do. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level. This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships (when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes). Some people find this metaphor entirely clear, while others find it confusing, misleading or simply redundant to ascribe mental attributes to something that is mindless. For example, Andrew Brown has written: "Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene Taking away SOME TYPES of life is in my view a way to deal with SOME TYPES of depression, I have tried to explain why I think that above. I respect your disagreement Ess, mainly because I do not believe it is based upon "divine edict". |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I never meant to imply "no exceptions". But generally it is a very faulty mentality to think that taking away anyone's life is the key to dealing with depression. It would be wrong for a woman to try to take away the life of a rapist to deal with depression. In likewise it is wrong for for her child's life to be taken away because of her depression. The child is not to blame for her depression. What is to blame is whatever misdeed or mistake happened that made the child to come about when she did not wish to have a child. In no way should a child in a womb be sentenced to capital punishment for someone else's bad choice or mistake. To deal with the crime or accident you need to use law and justice to try to prevent the crime from happening again, and learning and better choices against the accident happening again. In other words we ought to to do more of what protects and honours life, not what takes it away. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Of course that is absolutely true, and I never suggested it was. quote: I think you should have stopped after your first two sentences above, because here you start to get into deep water imo. "Blame" is not the issue here. What is the issue are the facts and circumstances and likely progressions of each individual case. Just because the person who is to blame can't be made to suffer in order to ameliorate the suffering of a victim doesn't imo automatically deny a victim amelioration from any other feasible source. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam So how is right to trivialize the life and eventual life of the child, and deny the child the right to that life on behalf of the mother's depression? A lot more than just depression put Charles Manson's life in question, but even he has the right to live and other people that did some of the most horrible crimes. How come an innocent child cannot be granted that much, but must face capital punishment through abortion on behalf of depression that has just as much possibility if not more to be made worse by the abortion? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I think if you bother to read what I've said before in this thread, you will see that the very last thing I do is trivialise any decision surrounding the termination of any life. In fact if any trivialisation is going on, it's by those who would say either that abortion is always right or that it is always wrong. I have never done that. quote: A meaningless statement. Too simple Ess. Circumstances. Choices. The best of bad options. Again, I've addressed this earlier in the thread. quote: Emotive simplifications are a waste of time Ess. "Innocence" is a word playing on the guilt that we all feel when terminating life and is often an irrelevance in decisions that have to be made where all parties are "innocent". quote: A meaningless statement. Too simple Ess. Circumstances. Choices. The best of bad options. Again, I've addressed this, and the whole thrust of your short questions earlier in the thread. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam, I obviously don't agree. All you are doing is complicating it so you can avoid making general judgement of the extreme of taking a human's life and trying to justify it by its complexity. When something such as depression is taken out on someone's life it is trivializing human life because it puts that complication above the life. The same thing happens in suicide, and murders in one way or another. It is no different with abortion. Depression, emotions, pessimism, poverty, overpopulation, and the like don't make it right to take human life. I am being general because abortion is generally wrong, not because I think it should never be done. Why do you avoid making a general judgement about abortion? There is something a lot more important here, life, a lot more important than trying to find the quickest relief from complications such as depression. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: With great respect Ess, you obviously haven't followed my discourse throughout the thread. You want general judgements, well here's three "that I made earlier" (as Blue Peter used to say - a Brit joke, Grinch will get it): "Imo there's a problem with all abortion. There's a problem with killing any entity. Life's a problem Huan. You muddle through and do your best in each circumstance as you find it according to your personal credo." "I don't restrict myself rigidly to cases involving rape or potential loss of life because many other situations present significant challenges too, but what I am sure of is that abortion is never ever a good solution. The idea of a woman using abortion as a form of casual contraception is abhorrent to me" "The fact is Stephen I am secure in my own moral position which is that it is wrong to kill. But there are instances where the wrongness of killing can be mitigated by other moral imperatives. We just differ on the extent of those other imperatives." Maybe we aren't as far apart as you seem to think Ess. Perhaps it's true to say that it's never "right" to take life but sometimes it's necessary. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam I am sorry for not looking at your earlier posts more closely. I know you don't think abortion is a "good" thing. Generally no one does. But it is many things that people suggest justify or mitigate , that I argue against, when they seem a very a contradiction in the argument of holding life so highly, and choosing abortion only by necessity, not because I thought you, or anyone for that matter, generally believes in holding life lowly or that abortion should be done casually. But the frequencies and numbers of abortions don't seem to live up very well to people's beliefs of life to be held highly or choosing abortion only by necessity. Most among those numbers have other options in which they may give up the child through other means, in which the child lives, instead of dies, but they neglect to choose those instead of abortion, and that is what is so disappointing. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Well we have a lot of common ground in that post Ess. It IS very disappointing that so many abortions take place, but that is partly a function I think of the fact that a lot of time, resources and energy are expended in squabbling over the moral and legal issues instead of being devoted to education, counselling and generally attempts to work with the mothers instead of starting out with implicit (if not overt) demonisation. Telling people NOT to do something with their own bodies (as mothers quite understandably perceive it) is immediately working against the psychological grain. And moreover where abortion is unavailable or illegal the circumstance of backstreet abortion means that both mothers and babies then often die in horrendous circumstances. Far better to work with the grain imo, and use, education, persuasion and economic help where necessary to try and avoid the abortion option. I know there are may areas of grey here, and I don't rule anything out except firstly, the idea that abortion is always ok because the mother always has the right to choose, and secondly the idea that abortion is always wrong because my god says it is. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Bob, I think that setting up the rational and emotive as antithetical, is not being true to reality. Being so logical that one does not take into account the emotional is, well ... illogical. And likewise a purely emotional response to a situation which should be logically considered is felt to be wrong by most. I honestly feel that my personal view here is striking a balance. I'm just not sure what you're trying to say when you say such things other than: "I wouldn't approach this subject the way you do." But we already knew that right? quote: And I simply don't think this is true. I really do understand that "abortion-rights" advocates and "pro-life" advocates have much in common. Actually that's one of the very reasons I am hopeful about earnest debate and discussion. quote: Since we have so much in common ... we can still discuss and juxtapose the very different conclusions. Though this is a bit more complex than math, my grade-school tests taught me that the conclusion of an equation (not merely the previous points of agreement, as the whole class was sure that multiplication was the goal) was supremely important. I don't want you get the wrong impression ... namely that I don't recognize common ground, and noble aims in your mind. I simply think your conclusion is wrong since even those who have little contact with their feelings won't be prevented from things like "abortion as birth control" or "abortion as gender selection". If it is legally allowed as a right, then it is legally allowed as a right. quote: Boy I thought that "others making decisions for me" WAS the definition of politics! Seriously, I do understand. Yet we know that perfect individual determination is a farce. We just all disagree on where the line of control is drawn. You doubtlessly think the decision should be made for those who would commit infanticide (contrary to the likes of Peter Singer). So external controls cannot be painted as bad-in-themselves in order to make your argument, because in half a second, you drop your own distaste for this for another principle you deem higher. So yes the question is there ... as it always is when it comes to things which involve legislation. quote: It is possible to view a belief as heretical, and not resort to destruction. If Jesus is in fact the Jewish Messiah, then traditional Judaism could never be viewed as complete. And yet Jesus himself taught us to love not only our neighbors but our enemies. What harm would there have been in letting the Jews continue as they had? Judaism has never been particularly proselytistic. The Popes you mention must be critiqued by the very same standards of truth that we have been given by their professed Lord. Not to be unkind, but I'm sure you agree, that not all that calls itself Christian is so ... or at least so in the most spiritual meaning. It is a bit interesting that you bring up the Jews, however, since their greatest and most memorable persecution was carried in a large degree by a pseudo-scientific dogma denying their humanness. Sound familiar? quote: Though I think the Deistic tendencies of many of our Founding Fathers made them less-than-Christian, I think you are overstating this secular strain. Why? Because the most secular of them, Jefferson, could still find nothing other than "Creator" (a distinctly Judeo-Christian idea) as an unchanging source of human rights. Anything else would be completely arbitrary on our part, and he knew that. quote: I would rather say they were far too unaware of the nature and science of the human fetus to know otherwise. And you must remember, we DO do our best to protect the unborn from the uncertainties of natural disease that would threaten its life ... so why would such uncertainties have any bearing upon the questions of rights either for the Founders or for us? That's almost like saying that the life expectancy of a slave was so short and generally ephemeral, that they never would have come to consider their human rights. quote: But surely you think abolition was corrective?? In short ... they were wrong to leave out the black men and women and children in their consideration of rights? If so, their ignorance or mistakenness is no argument. quote: The pro-life position can be summarized in such a statement. Termination equals no pursuit. quote: Its an entirely different discussion, but we can also ask why even these "secularists" retained distinctly Judeo-Christian ideas, in particular surrounding the conception of human rights. And anyway, unless "You shall not Murder" is exclusive to the Judeo-Christian ethical heritage (and I feel you would say 'it isn't' )... anti-abortion laws could never be criticized as imposing State religion, anymore than laws to protect newborns. quote: As I've said before ... though I believe that morals (that are really morals) sit incongruously upon a secular framework, and are best explained and conceived in a religious world-view, this particular debate is not about a prescription that is exclusively religious ... but about the working out of moral principles already accepted by secular and religious alike. The debate still comes down to whether the fetus is a human being. And, if it is reasonable to think so, why killing an innocent human being for a non-life-threatening situation should be accepted with abortion ... when it stands starkly alone in this regard, in our ethical landscape. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, I haven't forgotten you. Time, time, time ... Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mmmmmm Stephen - I feel so wanted Seriously, no hurry, Christmas will shortly be a time-thief. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
You say why take away a life if the condition isn't life threatening but being raped can lead to depression. Many women do go through depression after being raped and being forced to carry a child to term when they are reminded of that rape constantly at every moment wouldn't help their depression, in fact it could make it worse. I don't think its right to make them go through with that- at all. Its what I believe because being raped isn't over 6 months after- it like other painful experiences leave scars and they don't ever fade. I've never been raped or had to deal with something of that extent thank goodness, but my cousin was molested and that left so many scars on her among other things. She was so broken and so hurt for so many years after- she had a lot of other issues but that just added to them and it took a lot of break downs and harsh realities before she was able to turn her life around. i know it hurt her really badly. I don't know if you've heard of girl aggression most haven't but its a form of bullying thats really damaging. I've had experiences with that and even though thats far less painful than rape, ,at least the way I experienced it- it ws still pretty bad. Its been over two years and I still have memories from it- it still affects how I am with people. I don't trust people easily, I didn't before and even now I'm scared that whatever I say will be used against me. I shut down randomly- because it was an instinct for me w hen that was happening a couple years ago- and old habits die hard. I pull away and become completely distanced because I expect to be verbally, and emotionally attacked. I can't walk ten feet across the cafeteria without being afraid that the minute I turn around or get what I was going to get- my friends will have ditched me. I just know from personal experience that some things never leave you and some scars are always painful- what I went through is nowhere as traumatic as rape which is why I believe so strongly that forcing someone to undergo pain and live with scars that are tenfol- is wrong |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
