Home - List All Discussions

MoaningMike Sigma Any Other Pro-choicer

What IS your position on abortion.

by: galen

I've spent a lot of time reading your lengthy posts and I still cannot find a clear cut position that you have on Abortion. What is it that you believe. Personally... not the law and not hypothetical logic arguments.

This is out there for all of the pro-choicers that feel we "don't understand" what you are about... please put it out there.

Mary

reply from: NewPoster1

I believe that any female (including those who are married or under 18) should have the absolute right to have an immediate abortion during the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. I hold strong opposition towards any type spousal notification/consent, parental notification/consent, mandatory waiting periods or any other type of law or policy that obstructs and needlessly increases the gestational age at which an abortion takes place.

reply from: bradensmommy

Trust me Galen, I have been suggesting psychological help for new poster but he/she won't accept it. I seriously think there is something wrong with her/his brain.

reply from: NewPoster1

Is there a reason why you find it necessary to persist with these personal attacks. There've been people on this forum who favored legal abortion for all 40 weeks of pregnancy and others who shamefully mocked other members for mourning offspring that were aborted against their will, yet none of them had their psychological health, brain function, or childhood experiences questioned. I'm curious, is there something about my personality in particular that offends you? Perhaps I remind you of someone that you detest?

reply from: RePit

I can tell you what I don't believe.

I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in ghosts, I don't believe in Santa Claus, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

I also don't believe the unborn has some special, magical quality that makes it more important than the mother.

Yes, the human unborn is human, and it is living. Does the fact that it is a living human mean it should be given the same value and consideration as a living human who is grown, breathing, thinking and communicating?

Because no one can answer that question without using their own emotion or faith, then it is up to the individual to decide the answer for themselves.

Is killing wrong? Is it wrong to kill animals? Is it wrong to kill trees? Mosquitoes?

It letting human cells die wrong? Is it wrong for a man to spill his seed on the earth, or wrong for a woman to let her eggs shed every month and not give them an opportunity for life? Is it wrong for someone to undergo chemotherapy to kill human cancer growing inside them?

reply from: yoda

One thing you can always count on from a proabort is a plethora of euphemisms. Here, the phrase "same value and consideration" is used as a euphemism for "the right of the mother to kill the baby any time she wants to". Now, how does the right to kill become the "same value and consideration"? It doesn't, it just sounds better.

No, they will not give up their euphemisms and speak plainly. Plain speech would be much too graphic and honest. Do not look for it any time soon.

reply from: MoaningMike

No, newposter, there is nothing wrong with you. Unfortunately, you will more than likely continue to experience hardships while participating in these forums-due in part mostly because you have the views that you do. If a pro-choicer holds views at the most extreme opposite end of the spectrum from those of a pro-lifer, they are going to get criticized.

I actually mentioned this to another person in another thread, about the proper and respectful way to hold an argument, and how it involves NOT directly attacking the person. But far be it for me, someone young and foolish, to try to share my views about such things. If attacking you is the only way to satisfy them, so be it. My only advice for you, newposter, is to sit back, read the postings, and laugh. Laugh, because you know that nobody can take away your views, and if someone has to attack you directly rather than your views, there must be something wrong somewhere...

Sorry for the disorder of my replies here. Nonetheless...

As I have said before, I am against the abortion of children. I find that it is unacceptable and immoral/unethical to do such a thing. I love children, and I personally would never have an abortion, nor would I support it (personally). This is where it gets tricky. I walk a fine line between the pro-life/pro-choice movements.

As much as I detest the idea of abortion, I also love the idea of the most simple and yet most important right of all...one that indeed was given by the Lord himself. This is what we call choice. I honestly don't know...I don't know if an unborn should have less consideration than that of a full grown woman (or a 17 year old, whatever the case may be). It is not up to me to answer that, and I am not one to judge whether or not the mother or the unborn shall receive more consideration.

This nodoubt puts a lot of confusion in the minds of all the readers of this forum, because even I am aware that I seem judgemental at times. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, I respect the decisions of each and every person on this earth. You know, even if someone's decision involved the slaughter of a whole continent, or if it entailed much worse things, it is not my place to put judgement on them. Perhaps I would be upset for a miniscule period of time, but before I could turn red in the face about it I would move on. A person's choice is a person's choice. Bottom line.

When the day comes, the Almighty will seek out and punish those who have not acted accordingly. If I happen to be one of those because of my beliefs, so be it. I do all I possibly can to help other people in any given situation, and I very rarely judge people prominently. Although, as I said, I may seem a bit harsh in these forums, it is because I simply try to point out the other sides of the argument. No matter what the situation is, I can argue either way. You will always hear this from me, but there are always...always at least two sides to any story. I guess I seem to think I can present a fresh perspective. Perhaps not. That brings me to one more statement before I end this long reply. If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I don't mean to, I just try my best to bring the strongest arguments I have to the table.

To reiterate: I detest the idea of abortion. I couldn't love kids anymore than I do. But the Lord gave us choice. While I personally will not have anything whatsoever to do with abortion, I will not go out of my way to complain about it. If it is indeed wrong, the day will come when those who have chosen to wrong their unborns will suffer.

reply from: domsmom

Then whats up with your sig? Just to get people all in a tissy?

reply from: AshMarie88

Why until 18 weeks? Why not something like... before there is a heartbeat? Not that that is better...

reply from: MoaningMike

I don't get it. Rephrase, please.

reply from: Sigma

I suppose at the core of my philosophy is the belief that none must share the use of their physical body against their will. As long as the fetus is inside the woman and using her body to live, the woman is justified in removing that connection. If having an abortion is the easiest method on the woman, so be it.

reply from: RePit

I can logically show you, without using personal, emotional arguments or faith, the value of both black people and of woman. You cannot do the same for the unborn.

One thing you can always count on from a proabort is a plethora of euphemisms. Here, the phrase "same value and consideration" is used as a euphemism for "the right of the mother to kill the baby any time she wants to". Now, how does the right to kill become the "same value and consideration"? It doesn't, it just sounds better.

No, they will not give up their euphemisms and speak plainly. Plain speech would be much too graphic and honest. Do not look for it any time soon.

I could say the same for the pro-life argument. It has no substance, just emotion. That is why you insist on using emotive words like "killing" and "murder". I on the otherhand have not used strongly emotive words. I do not use any euphemisms, you cannot see that because you are blinded by emotion.

reply from: bradensmommy

Is there a reason why you find it necessary to persist with these personal attacks. There've been people on this forum who favored legal abortion for all 40 weeks of pregnancy and others who shamefully mocked other members for mourning offspring that were aborted against their will, yet none of them had their psychological health, brain function, or childhood experiences questioned. I'm curious, is there something about my personality in particular that offends you? Perhaps I remind you of someone that you detest?

Do you ever go back and read your posts? You really seem to be a heartless person with no soul. I'm sure that many people on this board will agree. You remind me of skippy mainly.

reply from: dignitarian

Dear Repit:

Okay, so we’re clear on this. You are a faith-filled believer in the philosophy of “Positivism”, thus you can’t believe in anything at all unless you can touch, feel, smell, taste, hear, or see it.

Well this is interesting. I suppose one of the more peculiar aspects of this type of thinking is that, by definition, a truth can’t really exist until such a time that we actually learn about it in some “tactile” sense. Is that a paradox or what? By the way, this might explain the more generally shallow and narrow perspectives associated with this type of thinking. Simply go back a little over a hundred years to hear the “best” minds declare absolutely that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. The truer reality was based more on what men believed rather than on what they were sure about.

Nevertheless, the fact is, many very intelligent people I’ve met believe the same way. I don’t know why some people implicitly insist on such a constricted form of thinking while others do not, but I do know this; the true positivist must eventually face an irresolvable paradox.

On the one hand, he can only believe what he sees, but the more he sees tends to reveal much more of the kinds of things that he can’t understand. (Go ahead; discuss this particular dilemma with our leading physicists.) Thus the positivistic thinker spends a lifetime basing his self-worth upon a cause that does little more than reveal his futility. His life purpose thus seems meaningless.

On the other hand, he can insist nevertheless that his life does have meaning after all as long as he ignores (remains ignorant of) the deepest and most pervasive truths that he cannot prove. Yet, by definition, ignorance is a trait he must reject. Now what?

Wait a minute! Isn’t this all self-evident anyway?

Evidently not to the positivists.

Regards,

Dignitarian

PS: If the above sounds like a rant, I apologize. In fact, look Repit; since you’re such a pure positivist, I’ve got a better idea. Think of this if ever you are blessed with a son or daughter. Try not to miss the chance to hold and to watch just as your newborn son or daughter hesitates before taking his very first breath, and then look into his eyes as they open for the very first time. See what you find. Then tell me we are accidental blobs of chemicals. Then tell me there is no intrinsic worth. Then tell me life has no meaning. Then tell me there is no eternity.

reply from: domsmom

I don't get it. Rephrase, please.

Your signature says "For every child you dont abort, I'm going to abort 3. Have a nice day."
That, to me, doesnt exactly say you dont like abortion and couldnt love children more.

reply from: domsmom

Why 18 wewks? Why not 25 or 38 weeks? Or a month old for that matter?

reply from: MoaningMike

Really? Than tell me, how does the value of a hardened criminal differ from that of an unborn child? If the inherent value of human beings is the same, how can you "justify" the killing of anyone for any reason?

If so, then that basically states that neither the unborn child nor the mother is of more importance than the other. In that case, how do you determine who has mor rights?

And an fyi...my signature was just put there to be a smart-aleck...

reply from: yoda

Your statement is puzzling to me.

Your statements about "choice" do not ring true to me. For example, you don't have any reservations about supporting laws against the killing of newborn babies, do you? If not, then why on earth do you draw a "line of death" at birth? Why do you not give the same deference to someone who makes the "choice" to kill a newborn baby that you apparently give to someone who kills the unborn baby?

reply from: yoda

I'm sure mother nature and/or God will be most interested to hear your views on why human reproduction is all wrong and unfair, and why each person living on earth today, and for untold millions of years has "violated" their mother's rights.

It's idiotic to make such an argument, IMO, because we are without any options as to how we reproduce. We have no choice about what happens when sperm meets egg, and the resulting human being has no choice either. To give the mother or anyone else the automatic right to kill such a hapless human being is the height of barbarity and cold heartedness, IMO.

reply from: yoda

You don't use any euphemisms, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that abortion kills babies? Puleeeeze!

I don't use the term "murder", simply because of the semantic nuances of that word. But the term "kill" is absolutely, undeniably the most accurate word that can be used to describe what happens to an unborn baby in an abortion.

Before the abortion, it is alive. Afterwards, it is dead. HOW is that NOT "killing"?

reply from: yoda

Why does the killing of a convicted murderer justify killing inocent babies? Can you really see no difference between those two killings? There are many Prolifers who don't believe in capital punishment, what do you say to them?

I think it's assinine and egotistical to say any one human has more moral rights than another. But the biggest lie of all is to say that the idea of one person having "more rights" than another gives that person the right to take the innocent life of the other. That is the most horrible thing you could say.

And that was worth more to you than being taken seriously?

reply from: Tam

Wow, we completely agree on that! Neither do I! I believe the unborn child has the unspecial, unmagical quality of being a human being and that this normal, mundane quality makes the child as important as any other living human child. (What a concept!)

Yes, it is. And it is up to the society to determine its response to various decisions on the part of the individual. For example, Andrea Yates decided for herself that her children should not live another day--and the legal (societal) response was to prosecute her for their deaths.

reply from: Tam

Really? Than tell me, how does the value of a hardened criminal differ from that of an unborn child? If the inherent value of human beings is the same, how can you "justify" the killing of anyone for any reason?

You can't. That's my position, anyway.

If so, then that basically states that neither the unborn child nor the mother is of more importance than the other. In that case, how do you determine who has mor rights?

Neither has more rights. That's the pro-life position, anyway.

A smart-aleck? Well, you probably don't realize that to people who ACTUALLY love and care about children, your smart-aleck comment about killing three of them isn't very funny or very smart.

reply from: Tam

You are honestly saying that if an entire continent's population were brutally slaughtered, or even if something much worse happened, you would PERHAPS be "upset for a miniscule period of time" but would be okay with it before your face even turned red? You simply wouldn't give a damn? About anyone or anything? How about when the twin towers were destroyed--did you just go, "ho hum, nothing important happened today . . . I wonder what's on Showtime?" or what?!

reply from: Sigma

Since I do not believe in God and mother nature is not an entity to be petitioned, your snide comment does not apply. At least you admit it is not a fair or equal situation.

Our society values equality, and I believe very much in equal treatment. Women are in an unequal situation, regardless of whether this is how we reproduce. It is not equal to compell women to continue her pregnancy against her will and without her consent.

reply from: yoda

Did anyone ever promise you that life would be "fair" or "equal"? If they did, they lied to you.

No, life is always showing preference for the strong over the weak, that's nature. Males in prehistoric times may have frequently used their strength to rape and impregnate women, for all we know. And nature also made us a "bi-gender" species, so that only about half of us have the burden of gestation. Write your congressman!

So, having recognized this inequality, you propose that the equitable solution is to kill babies. How very cosmopolitan of you! Do you have any other solutions that don't involve taking innocent human life?

Or does it really not matter to you how many innocent human beings die? Are you indifferent to that?

reply from: MoaningMike

I'm confused now, too. I give the same yielding to everybody. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, I will yield to anyone's choices. No matter how right, wrong, or indifferent they are.

reply from: yoda

Including the serial child killer? You will argue against punishing them?

reply from: Tam

I'm confused now, too. I give the same yielding to everybody. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, I will yield to anyone's choices. No matter how right, wrong, or indifferent they are.

What if someone wants to choose to kill you? You ok with that, too? Or is it only when OTHER PEOPLE get hurt that you don't give a damn?

reply from: Sigma

And yet, I continue to try to make it more fair and equal. It is an ideal of mine.

No, I propose that women have the choice to kill any humans that are attached to the woman against the woman’s will. Neither men nor women should have to support another by allowing that other to feed upon them. It should always be a choice to allow this.

reply from: yoda

Just as I feared, your "solution" to the inequities of nature is to protect and encourage the practice of killing innocent babies.

Women will never reach equality with men by climbing over the dead bodies of their children. Killing the innocent NEVER restores equality, it only creates more inequality.

How are you going to solve the problem of the inequity of killing babies? Don't they deserve some retribution for being killed without any consideration?

reply from: Sigma

Consideration should be of the woman before any consideration of what is growing inside her. The woman is the most important participant in the pregnancy relationship.

reply from: galen

Jeez what one misses when one is giving exams...

I must say that I am very interested in these arguments.

MM
Have you thought about what you have said and how it was presented? When you hold a belief and then post with a sig, such as yours it makes you less credible. your passivity seems to be more of a way to get around the hard questions in life. We do not live without emotion and empathy unless we are a narcissist or psychopath. Do you really care so little about your fellow inhabitants of this earth not to be moved when one or more of them experience trajedy?

Sig,

I've said it before and i'll say it again. nature was never meant to be equal. Reproduction is a part of nature and the human condition. It is not a part of law. No matter what you do it will be percieved as unfair by part of the population. When you take away from the haves to give to the have nots you are affecting someone somewhere in a way that you might never have noticed before. bankrupt the company... innocent people loose jobs. Eliminate a speciese and you have created a death sentence for 100 others. Do not protectyour offspring, you will eliminate your species. When we give permission to a mother to kill her child then we kill the possibilities of our own species. That staement has no emotion to it... its just a fact of life. And BTW life is not fair.

that's all for now .... I have to go grade exams.

Mary

reply from: Tam

I'm confused now, too. I give the same yielding to everybody. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, I will yield to anyone's choices. No matter how right, wrong, or indifferent they are.

What if someone wants to choose to kill you? You ok with that, too? Or is it only when OTHER PEOPLE get hurt that you don't give a damn?

Dropping this one, too?

I thought you would yield to anyone's choices! Isn't there ANYTHING you would stand against? Would you even stand against an attempt to kill you? Hello?

reply from: Sigma

Our laws and my personal philosophy treat the sexes equally (or should) in this regard. Regardless of biology, both sexes should be able to disconnect those who are feeding off of their body.

Regardless of biology or fate, none are just told “well, life just isn’t fair” because of that. That is not and should not be an excuse to require someone to just sit up and take it like a good girl, no matter what “it” is.

Abortion has been a part of human existence for a long time now, galen, and we are in no danger of having too few people to continue the species. Search for “ancient abortion recipes” and you will find several written recipes. They were written on the walls of ancient caves, and before that most likely handed down from mother to daughter as “women’s secrets”. From http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Abortion.html

Several methods of abortion which rely upon herbs are evident in the texts provided by Soranus and Dioscorides. In order to abort the fetus during the early months of pregnancies, Soranus and Dioscorides suggest dietary diuretics, laxatives with pungent clyster, and lupine beans, which are poisonous unless properly prepared[...]

reply from: MoaningMike

If you would have taken the time to read and comprehend my earlier posting, vater, you would notice perhaps that I made no mention whatsoever that the killing of a convicted murderer justifies the killing of innocent babies. Don't even try to reverse the whole situation and use the argument that was started by pro-lifers against me. I never once said such a thing. I merely stated that since pro-lifers have no guilt or pity for those people who are hardened criminals, they should also have no pity or guilt for the unborn children. I merely stated that "A life is a life.". The life of a hardened criminal is no different than the life of an unborn, and if pro-lifers choose not to feel pity for the criminals, then they should not moan and groan when the life of an unborn is taken.

Again vater, I was using the pro-lifers arguments which stated that one has more moral rights than another. Notice how I used a quote from a pro-lifer on page one and RESPONDED to that quote with one of my own...the one that begins, "If so, then that basically states that neither unborn child nor the mother is of more importance than the other." I don't understand what is so hard to grasp, and why I have to end up spelling everything out to people here. Read carefully, comprehend, and then reply. I at no time said that a person is worth more morally than another person. I was going off of a commend posted by a PRO-LIFER who said that, and I used their analogy to disprove them. Using my own analogy against me incorrectly in a futile attempt to disprove ME will not work. I, too, think it is very asanine and egotistical to say somebody has more rights than another.

Posted by Tam:

Again you indirectly attack me and accuse me of not loving children. You propose to tell me my stance on the way I feel about children. Until you have met me in person, don't bother with such ludacris statements, please.

Posted by Tam:

I am honestly saying that if an entire continent's population were brutally slaughtered Iwould be upset for the smallest time period, but wouldn't make a big deal out of it. I wouldn't say I don't give a damn, I would say that it happened, it happened for a reason, it is not up to me to question that reason or the choice of those who made it happen, and I shall continue to live my life rather than piss and moan until I get blue in the face. How ABOUT when they destroyed the twin towers?? I did not just go, "ho hum, nothing important happened today...I wonder what's on Showtime?" I don't find it amusing that you choose to be so sardonic with your snide remarks. It was a sad thing, yes. I felt bad for people, yes. I was mad at the "terrorists", yes. But it lasted for no more than a day. And I won't go into this in detail, but now those "terrorists" are becoming more and more innocent as we do playbacks about the events and the films that were actually taken on that day. The United States may in fact be the "terrorists" that we seek to protect this nation from. So tell me, what use would it have been for me to gripe all these years about some foreign nation and it's people "ambushing" the WTC's when in fact it was the United States behind it the whole time? There is no reason to anger myself over such things.

Yes, Yodavater, even the serial child killer. I will not "argue" against punishing them. I simply will not engage myself into any situation which puts me in the position of judging who is wrong and who is right. The simple fact is, the killer made a choice. That choice pretty much damns him for the rest of eternity. So bet it. If someone wants to punish him, that's THEIR choice. I will not involve myself.

Tam, if someone wants to kill me, so be it. My only regret would be that my family and friends would have a difficult time dealing with my loss. If you came and knocked on my door this minute with a shotgun and I opened it up and you put a slug right in my chest, so be it. Life happens. We are all here for a reason, whatever it may be. None of us can live forever, and none of us WILL live forever. So taking that into consideration, I live my life day to day, not worrying about the future nor dwelling on the past. If you killed me, or someone else killed me, there was a reason for it, whether it happened to be just coincidence, or because they were robbing me and I startled them in the process, there is a reason. As The Birds once said, "To everything, turn turn turn, there is a season, turn turn turn. And a time to every purpose under heaven." And so it goes...

My signature is my own business. I do realize that it makes me less credible, but that is a part of how my investigation to others' reactions is processed. My passivity is the way I choose to live life, because it is how I feel I should. To me, there are no "hard questions" in life. If I come across something I don't know the answer to, I turn to others for help. Nothing question in life is hard or difficult enough to make me less passive. I am here to learn, to observe, to live. And I shall do so. You are right. We do not live without emotion and empathy. It is human nature. However, by determining HOW MUCH emotion and empathy we choose to live with, we have better control over our lives. I do care for my fellow inhabitants on this earth, and I am moved when one or more of them experience trajedy. The Key is, for how LONG am I distraught or upset or moved about the whole situation? I have learned to control my emotions, and it is working out for me. I cannot blame you for thinking and responding to me as you do, for if you yourself cannot figure out how to do this, or choose not to do it, then you have no idea what such a life is all about and will not understand my perspective. For the first 19 years of my life, I was the same way. I would get emotional, I would get angry, irate, sad, grumpy, moody, pissy, etc etc when something happened. Those emotions got the better of me, and I am ashamed to say it took me 19 years to learn to do it, but I have learned to not let them take control of my life. I feel things. I am not a robot. But because I feel them for a minute period of time you assume me to be a robot. I am sorry I do not match your criterion for anything other than a narcissist/psychopath/robot. I hope you will consider this.

Have fun grading your exams

reply from: Tam

Again you indirectly attack me and accuse me of not loving children. You propose to tell me my stance on the way I feel about children. Until you have met me in person, don't bother with such ludacris statements, please.

Hey, it's YOUR signature. It's on you.

I am honestly saying that if an entire continent's population were brutally slaughtered Iwould be upset for the smallest time period, but wouldn't make a big deal out of it. I wouldn't say I don't give a damn, I would say that it happened, it happened for a reason, it is not up to me to question that reason or the choice of those who made it happen, and I shall continue to live my life rather than piss and moan until I get blue in the face. How ABOUT when they destroyed the twin towers?? I did not just go, "ho hum, nothing important happened today...I wonder what's on Showtime?" I don't find it amusing that you choose to be so sardonic with your snide remarks. It was a sad thing, yes. I felt bad for people, yes. I was mad at the "terrorists", yes. But it lasted for no more than a day. And I won't go into this in detail, but now those "terrorists" are becoming more and more innocent as we do playbacks about the events and the films that were actually taken on that day. The United States may in fact be the "terrorists" that we seek to protect this nation from. So tell me, what use would it have been for me to gripe all these years about some foreign nation and it's people "ambushing" the WTC's when in fact it was the United States behind it the whole time? There is no reason to anger myself over such things.

Hey, first of all, you are on about page three of a thousand-page book, and I've read it. So don't think you're breaking some big news to me about who was responsible for the incident, because you're just starting to catch your first whiff of a clue about it. Second of all, regardless of who was responsible, it's interesting that your indignation lasted no more than a day, and no matter who was responsible, you have no intention of any sort of protest or any hope that the responsible parties will be punished, I suppose?

Tam, if someone wants to kill me, so be it. My only regret would be that my family and friends would have a difficult time dealing with my loss. If you came and knocked on my door this minute with a shotgun and I opened it up and you put a slug right in my chest, so be it. Life happens. We are all here for a reason, whatever it may be. None of us can live forever, and none of us WILL live forever. So taking that into consideration, I live my life day to day, not worrying about the future nor dwelling on the past. If you killed me, or someone else killed me, there was a reason for it, whether it happened to be just coincidence, or because they were robbing me and I startled them in the process, there is a reason. As The Birds once said, "To everything, turn turn turn, there is a season, turn turn turn. And a time to every purpose under heaven." And so it goes...

Well, that explains a great deal. It is because I value my own life, and because I am a fair person, that I extend my value of my own life to valuing the lives of others. It is because you don't value your own life, or that of anyone else, that you can sit by and not even care about any form of slaughter around you. That is your prerogative.

reply from: MoaningMike

And that explains an even greater deal. You value your own life. You value it in your own way. I value my life. I value it my own way. Your definition of value is different than mine, it is obvious now. You think that just because I do not feel the way you do about life's meaning that I do not care about anything. How sadly mistaken you are. But it's ok.

And don't tell me I'm getting my first whiff of what's going on with the WTC. I've known, little girl, about the incident and who was responsible for the past 4.5 years now. I do more research than you think. Again I ask you not to judge me personally until you meet me and get to know the way I think and why I do so.

About my indignation lasting no more than a day...yeah it's interesting. It's also interesting how I have better control over my life and emotions and thoughts than do you, and because I have so much of it you seem to be in a fit of jealousy or something. You do not understand. It is a fault, sure. I can see that. I do not blame you, as I said before, for you do not know me and therefore you do not know how I feel or why I feel. I don't know about you, but I personally don't like to see people punished for their actions. Every time somebody bombs something, or kills someone, or breaks a law, I don't "wish" for their punishment. I don't sit at home and smirk to myself, HOPING and praying that someone will commit a crime in order that I may satisfy myself and say "Oh, I hope they get the death penalty.". Your attitude is very poor, and for that I am sorry. I just seem to remember a biblical quote, stating that if someone hits you in the face, you do not retaliate. You turn the other cheek so they may do it again. I do not delight in the punishment of others.

It IS my signature. It IS on me. I acknowledged that in the last posting.

I know you have more questions in your mind about why and how I can control myself so "dubiously". Ask away, or accuse away, or obliterate me with slander and vicious words if you wish. I will still continnue to do my best to explain myself to you so that you may perhaps come to an understanding.

reply from: cgshanksttt

You are not that dumb,it's simple for centurys women had children and loved them .Did your mom?The answer is you can not stop a beating heart unless you admit murder.Cmon don't hide behind words look at the bloody bodies just like ours

reply from: donkeybong

ARGH! People are registering just to make personal attacks!? I think that's a new low!

Please, just because a person is pro-choice does not mean their mothers hated them. In fact, if their parents hated them at an earlier time, they might have been aborted. Consider that food for thought...

reply from: cgshanksttt

I would believe that any husband whos wife killed their baby would have the right to retaliate, but Jesus Christ saved me so we have to Obey the Law unless it comes to another civil war

reply from: RePit

Yeah, because making up stories about gods and fairies to explain the world is less subjective...

You cannot accept life without "God", "magic", "fairies", or some higher being. You cannot accept the true futility and meaninglessness of your own life. You can't accept the fact that you are a mere mortal. You will die one day - that is the end of you - there is no afterlife. A hundred years after you have gone, no one will remember you, your body absorbed into the earth, a housing development built over your grave. Death is a fact of life. You can't accept your own futility so you choose to believe in other mystical ideas.

I find meaning in my life from being honest enough to admit to the futility of my life. I have a richer more fulfilling life knowing that each day could be my last. I do not need to make up stories about God and the afterlife to make myself feel special and give my life meaning. I find meaning in other ways - such as seeking the truth of the universe in an objective manner.

Yes there are many unexplained wonders of the universe. Just because we cannot explain them does not mean there is something 'higher' out there. It simply means we are too dumb to understand it. It is rather arrogant to think that just because we cannot understand it that it must be magic. There is no magic - we are just not clever enough to understand.

Indeed it is a natural human quality to make up stuff to explain things we don't understand. Look at any ancient culture. They have gods and mythical beings to explain phenomena they don't understand. As humans and their cultures 'evolve' they make up new stories. Once humans find out a solar eclipse is not Ra's boat being attacked by Thoth, then they soon forget the old gods and create new ones.

Someone once quoted: "A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics."

Cuteness is a very powerful defense mechanism and we (including myself) are suckers for it. But the guy who is credited for coming up with that theory, Lorenz, was a Nazi so I don't expect you to take any notice of that.

But I know what you are getting at about magic of the world. I wake up every morning to breathe in the fresh, cool desert air, and to watch the sunrise over the outback. It's beauty is beyond explanation. To me, it needs no explanation, I accept it and enjoy it for what it is. I need not make up or believe stories about God or the Rainbow Serpent creating it. If someone discovers diamonds in the ground here, I doubt the bulldozers and trucks will stop just because I like the sunset, or because someone says God made the desert.

reply from: RePit

You don't understand my 'value system'. In a nutshell - the retards and homeless will likely be saved from death because people feel sorry for them, people will feel guilty for letting them die, people love them and have loved them, effort has gone into rearing them, and people are afraid they themselves will one day be homeless/retarded and the same thing will happen to them. It has nothing to do with "intrinsic human worth".

reply from: RePit

Wow, we completely agree on that! Neither do I! I believe the unborn child has the unspecial, unmagical quality of being a human being and that this normal, mundane quality makes the child as important as any other living human child. (What a concept!)

Tam, how do you value people? Do you value all persons equally? Do you value someone on the fact they are living and human, and on that alone?

Yes, it is. And it is up to the society to determine its response to various decisions on the part of the individual. For example, Andrea Yates decided for herself that her children should not live another day--and the legal (societal) response was to prosecute her for their deaths.

The legal/societal response in the case of Andrea Yates was based on the obvious and provable value of her 5 born children. Unplanned, unborn children have no such value.

reply from: MoaningMike

*sigh*

Concernedparent, I don't understand how you do not see this. There is nothing in this universe that "forces" us to kill another. If you are attacked by a terrorist, do not fight back, for killing is wrong. If you are attacked, you can run. You can ignore it. You can choose not to fight back. I don't want to hear that we are "forced" into killing others. There is no greater line of crap than that.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

genetic fallacy? or maybe appeal to age? either way... age has no bearing on truth value of any statement. just because a 2-year-old makes a claim does not mean that the claim is false. likewise, just because 90-year old makes an opposing claim, he is not necessarily true. truth is independent of its messengers.

reply from: galen

Oh to be 19 20 30 and to think that I have the world figured out........
Well I do hope that your inability to fathom anothers pain and respond to it will not be a disservice to you one day...

I never called you or anyone a robot. I do not have discussions with robots.

However please go read the psych definitions i put out there.

I do believe that you feel that your lack of indignation or stuffing of your feelings will be a service to you. Unfortunately you may find that your dispassionate response to things ( or what others may percieve as such) will end up hurting you in the long run.

Remember that when they " came for me there was no one left to protest"

may I suggest you go read some of Eric Erricson's work. He had a great insight on what happens when society as a whole ends up feeling as if they should not protest ( or fight back) against injustice.

Mary
Only 65 more to go Ha! Ha!

reply from: galen

Sorry sig,
in response to the earlier post... just because we can do something does not mean we should do something.

As for Ab methods through the ages, well are you a fan of Pennyroyale tea? women and men have self medicated throughout the ages. however they have also abandoned childer to the wolve, left them on hilltops and sacrificed them to gods. no culture that has been into killing off its own people has survived for long, go look into anthropology texts for the exact names but there have been quite a few over the history of humankind, that they have identified. I'll try to post you a few links later.

Other speciese have done the same when committing infatacide. Are we in danger as a speciese, i personally think we may be. We pollute out world, fight with each other, and teach our children not to value another's life, by advacating among other things, abortion. When you live in a culture such as this, you raise children to view others as expendable, and you have a basic breakdown in society. try sociology 101.

When a culture thrives it links itself with basic principals of nature, and one of those is that nature is not fair. because we are a part of nature...and you cannot think us out of this basic fact; you must come to term with the fact that you can not controll it. there for women will bear children. men will father them. everyone dies at some point, just as everyone is born at some point. The measure of How we allow this to happen defines our humanity, and our souls.

Mary
now i really do have to go back to grading.

reply from: yoda

In most humans, the instinct for self-preservation is so strong that it amounts to a reflex. That being the case, it hardly seems rational to me to analyze it morally. And we do not always have a clear path of escape, or the ability to run faster than our attacker or his/her weapons.

reply from: MoaningMike

You still don't get it. That instinct which leads most humans to react when something happens amounts to a reflex. That reflex is still dependend on your thoughts and brain waves. Therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever for killing. There IS no force which can make us kill. Read some quantum physics, too.

reply from: Tam

And that explains an even greater deal. You value your own life. You value it in your own way. I value my life. I value it my own way. Your definition of value is different than mine, it is obvious now. You think that just because I do not feel the way you do about life's meaning that I do not care about anything. How sadly mistaken you are. But it's ok.

And don't tell me I'm getting my first whiff of what's going on with the WTC. I've known, little girl, about the incident and who was responsible for the past 4.5 years now. I do more research than you think. Again I ask you not to judge me personally until you meet me and get to know the way I think and why I do so.

You know what, I don't feel like debating this issue with you--that's not what this board is for. So I'll just let your statements about how the US is to blame stand as your position on the subject, and I will stand by my assessment of that position. Moving on ...

Nor do I. In case you missed it in the other thread, I oppose the death penalty. You seem to like those gray areas. Well, there is a big "gray area" in between killing someone as punishment and sitting idly by while that someone kills someone else. In that sense, I am the one in the gray area and you are on the extreme, where you feel that no one has the right to lift a finger to interfere with anyone else.

As for your delusions that you are in such great control of your "life and emotions and thoughts" that I am in a "fit of jealousy"--please, in all seriousness here, you need to warn me before you say things like that in the future, because in my fit of laughter--erhm, I mean, jealousy, of course--I almost spewed water all over the keyboard (and I don't want to electrocute myself, since I value my life).

reply from: Tam

No, I don't value all people equally. But that doesn't mean I won't oppose someone else trying to kill someone. Yes, I would be MORE upset if someone were trying to kill, for example, my mother, than, for example, you, but I would still oppose the notion that anyone had the right to kill you.

To you, they have no such value. To you, apparently, they have no value at all.

reply from: yoda

Indeed! Then why do you support the killing of unborn babies?

reply from: Tam

Have you noticed this, too?

reply from: Tam

You still don't get it. That instinct which leads most humans to react when something happens amounts to a reflex. That reflex is still dependend on your thoughts and brain waves. Therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever for killing. There IS no force which can make us kill. Read some quantum physics, too.

Wait, are you trying to say there is no excuse whatsoever for killing?

Damn, dude, that is what I have been trying to say.

Are you trying to say that abortion isn't killing, then? Or do you understand that there is no excuse for abortion, either?

reply from: yoda

Well, mea culpa, I missed this little gem.... when more than one page is posted I sometimes forget to go back a page....

Obviously you've never lost anyone to murder. If you had you would not question the difference between feelings for murderers as compared to innocent babies. But come to think of it, almost anyone should be able to see that, unless they are intentionally blind.

And yet you support the "right" to kill innocent babies. How strange!

And yet you WILL involve yourself in PROTECTING the "right to kill babies". How does that make sense? Why should you get involved in abortion by posting on this forum in support of it?

reply from: MoaningMike

I do not give value to individual people. My value lies within the idea of humanity. Every man/woman/person is the same. Therefore, I do not question that difference because it does not exist. It is sad that your feelings get the best of you and allow you to make such pitiful arguments. Intentionally blind? Nice. Or how about, in your case, intentionally arrogant and purposely hurtful towards those whose views you cannot fathom.

But even stranger is the fact that I have stated, on numerous occasions, that I am not sure that that "right" exists. I do know, however, that the right to choose to kill innocent babies exists, and I do support that right. I grow tired of this debating this very simplistic idea with such people. But in order for you to have a better vision of the way I think, I will continue to try to explain.

Again, I am not certain that right exists. But the right to choose to kill babies exists. Tell me you need that one explained, oh wise masterful elder with 3000+ posts.

I'm not getting involved in abortion. I'm getting involved in putting myself into conversation about abortion with people.

reply from: Sigma

No need. I am aware that every culture that has existed has had experience with infanticide and abortion.

Whether we pollute too much or war too much is besides the point. We have enough people to continue our species and are in no danger in that way at this time.

Opinion.

reply from: MoaningMike

I am indeed trying to say there is no excuse whatsoever for killing. Now that wasn't so hard, was it Tam? However, there is a right to choose to kill someone, and to revoke that right is just as inexcusable as killing. It is not me who kills unborn babies. I have not wronged. So why on earth would I put myself in a position to try to take the right to choose to do so away from any individuals? If I did that, I have wronged. The fact remains, killing is wrong. I have not killed. I have not wronged. If I would try to take any persons right to choose away, I have wronged, and two wrongs don't make a right. Am I scratching the surface yet Tam?

Amen. I don't care to discuss it either at this point in time. But if you change your mind, I'm here. "IMO", you are finding out that I perhaps know a bit more than I let on and you don't want to embarass yourself. If that is how it is, my hat is off to you. You have thought more than Vater before you post. If not, than I stand corrected and I apologize (Since I didn't technically assume, but I'll apologize anyway)

Delusions? If you wish, I can give you a place and time where you may meet me in person and stick with me for however many days you feel you need in order to see the way things actually are. Perhaps after meeting me, seeing how I operate, seeing that I am in control of my life and emotions, then you will better understand that I am not full of baloney. You know, I once saw a movie, "What the Bleep do we Know", and in that movie, phsyics states that back in the 1700's, the Native Americans on the east coast could not see the British ships sailing in towards the shore (only the shaman saw it). But the fact remained, they were there. I immediately ridiculed this statement, saying that it could not be possible for somebody to "not see" something that was obviously there. I retract my satirical comments so that I may better understand how it is that you do not see these things.

It is good to know that you can find it in your heart to laugh at people who value life in different ways than yourself. I feel for you Tam. I do.

You know, if you spew water on the keyboard and electrocute yourself, it won't look like a murder...

reply from: Tam

I am indeed trying to say there is no excuse whatsoever for killing. Now that wasn't so hard, was it Tam? However, there is a right to choose to kill someone, and to revoke that right is just as inexcusable as killing.

Don't you understand that there is no way to revoke a right? You can try to prevent someone from exercising a right, but IF there is a right to choose to kill someone--by virtue of there being a right for us to do whatever we want at all times--no one could revoke that right.

Example: person A wants to kill person B. person C wants to go to the park with person B on person B's next birthday. Person C wants to live to see another birthday. Person C prevents person A from killing person C. Why is person A's right to do whatever s/he wants more important to you than person B's right to do whatever s/he wants, or person C's right to do whatever s/he wants (live to see another birthday). Are you judging any of these persons, none of them, or all of them?

Do you think it is MORE wrong to murder, or MORE wrong to stop a murder? In other words, if you had the choice of killing or preventing a killing, would you choose the latter? (In this hypothetical example, your favorite choice of doing nothing is not an option. Which would you choose if you had to choose between killing and preventing a killing?)

Aha!! Your diabolical plan revealed!!

reply from: NewPoster1

Why until 18 weeks? Why not something like... before there is a heartbeat? Not that that is better...

Why 18 wewks? Why not 25 or 38 weeks? Or a month old for that matter?

During the first 18 weeks of gestation the fetus has a 0% chance of surviving outside of it's mother, even if it's carefully removed and immediately treated with the most advanced medical technology.

reply from: yoda

Okay, then tell me what is any different about this so-called "right to choose" to kill babies and the "right to choose" to do any other dispicable thing? None, nada, zip, right? So then WHY are you HERE trying to convince us to adopt your position of complete neutrality towards all matters of morality? Why not go to a general interest forum and try your luck there? After all, your "theory" covers all of human activity, doesn't it?

We take this subject very seriously, and I find it very hard to believe that you would be here just to "put yourself in conversation with people" on this very limited subject. It's too much of a stretch for me.

reply from: Sigma

Before a certain point the fetal lung just isn't developed enough to breathe even with mechanical assistance

reply from: yoda

Okay. So because it is so totally helpless and dependent upon it's mother, that condition takes away the moral right to life?

Why does helpless and dependency reduce our right not to be killed? Why is vulnerability so dispicable to you that you use it to justify killing a baby?

reply from: MoaningMike

Since nobody seems to get me, I'll do this. How about if anyone has anymore questions and/or complaints about me and my point of view, they continue to post new threads. Until those threads are posted, I shall try my hardest to stick to topic and give the answers that are wanted of me. Fair enuff?

reply from: yoda

You're a hard guy to "get", Mike. I'm not sure that our inability to understand you warrants new threads, though.

reply from: Tam

Maybe ones the titles of which start out "Logical Inconsistencies . . . "

reply from: dasjuggernaut

because your background is so good, tam. seriously, mike HAS been consistent. he thinks everyone is wrong. which is not only plausible, but likely.

reply from: Tam

Hmm. Most of what you're posting today seems like troll droppings, but this is a challenge. I must assume that you genuinely do not see the inconsistencies in Mike's stated position. I mean, just off the top of my head, I can say that he opposes repealing child molestation laws but also opposes doing anything to stop child molestation. Or, if that's not true, then the way in which it is untrue will undoubtedly expose more inconsistencies.

Uh--you actually think that Mike's position can be summed up as "he thinks everyone is wrong"?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i know him personally.
his arguments tend to stem from the weakness of knowledge as we know it. we lack the ability to prove anything. though i am loathe to make reference to it, the matrix is a fine example of how reality is only what you construct. for starters, prove that you are not in the matrix. you can't. which means that even objective reality is lacking anything we can all agree on. as a result, you cannot possibly hope to determine absolute morality or anything else less than solid until you determine something that is solid.

reply from: Tam

Ok, your stated position is that nothing can be proven, there is no objective reality, etc. So why do you even care about anything, let alone abortion? Why are you here?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i'm here because the debate drew me. sure, i lied. i'm not german. well... ancestrally... but i'm coming clean now. i'm an american. and i'm here to debate.

reply from: Tam

Great, the gadfly swarm has returned.

So does your philosophy really consist of the idea that nothing can be proven, there is no objective reality, etc? Taking lessons from Dr. Simon Pritchett now, are you?

If you really believe that, then how can you prove that prohibiting abortion affects women at all? How can you prove they're even getting pregnant? How can you prove abortions even take place? If you can't, then why would you care about the issue? Just bored and looking to start some more flame wars?

reply from: MoaningMike

We can't prove it. And by we I mean any/all humans. That's the point.

How can you prove that a child in the womb is in fact a child? How can you prove that it is not just some flaw in our instruments which makes the sound of a heartbeat. How can you prove that abortion is immoral? If you can't, why would you care about the issue?

It goes both ways, Tam.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

hrm... maybe the above quote should be redirected to something ELSE tam said:

see... i was representing mike, not claiming to agree.

reply from: yoda

"Clean"? ROTFLMAO!!

reply from: dasjuggernaut

lawl. noob.
rofl.

reply from: yoda

Any reputable dictionary will establish that. Words of the vernacular are not physical objects, they are symbols that we use to represent an idea, and dictionaries record which ideas correspond to which ideas.

Personal opinions are not subject to proof. Personal moral opinions are not subject to proof, either.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

if morality is not absolute, yoda, then you may not legislate from it. if that is the case, then morality has no place in the legal system on the subject. so... is morality absolute, or is it all just opinion?

reply from: yoda

Did I mention legislation? Then why did you?

Morality can be either personal, societal, and spiritual. You need to know which specific type of morality is being discussed.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

not on this thread. but on another you commended me for recognizing a moral facet. i was just blending the threads.

reply from: yoda

That confuses the issues. Subjects and meanings change from thread to thread.

reply from: Tam

FYI: I replied to this stuff via PM. If you don't have them enabled, you might not see it. I suppose the chance exists that you did read it and simply have nothing to say in response--but that seems unlikely so I figure you don't have the PM function enabled (most folks don't, until someone sends them one and asks them to enable it).

reply from: cali1981

How very interesting.

Can there really be such a thing as "seeking the truth of the universe in an objective manner"? That statement makes no sense, RePit. Truth means different things to different people. One person's truth may not be another person's truth. TRUTH IS NOT OBJECTIVE! Just because someone does not see life as futile, does not mean that they are not being honest with themselves. You don't know that life is futile and meaningless. Nobody can prove OR disprove that, as it is not something that can be studied objectively and scientifically. I myself am an agnostic, but that doesn't mean that a God couldn't exist and that those who believe in one are wrong. I could be wrong. I really have no way of knowing.

"Mystical" ideas refer to supernatural things that are beyond scientific study, beyond the plane of this world. Those things cannot be tested by the methods that we know, so there can be no proof of whether or not there is truth to mystical ideas. In any case, it is certainly wrong of you to tell anyone who believes in mystical ideas that they are wrong or making it up. You don't know that!

reply from: Tam

Cali Cali Cali!!! Welcome back. Missed you!

reply from: cali1981

How on earth can you "prove" that something or someone has value? I'd like to see you defend this statement.

If you really mean that YOU don't value a certain someone's life, of course that is a matter of opinion. But that is not the same as saying that someone's life objectively has no value.

Here's something for you to chew on. I was an unplanned child; i.e., when my parents conceived me, they were not trying to have a child. Does that mean that my life has no value?

reply from: cali1981

Thank you! It's good to be back, although I may not be posting as much as usual, since I'm in the midst of an annoying internet situation.

reply from: MoaningMike

Well, so much for "sticking to the topic", eh momsquad? It's interesting to note that you welcome cali back with open arms because she agrees with you on the issue, even though she does everything you tell those who disagree with you not to do (like stick to topic). And when juggernaut comes back and sticks to topic, you shut your arms and snub him just because he is against you and can make fools of you all.

Congratulations, folks. You've won the grand prize of obserdity and stupor. You can have all my get-out-of-debate-free cards, but use them wisely. There are only a limited number. Y'all probably won't be sorry to see me go, but I'm outta here. This isn't worthwhile, nor is it going anywhere soon since the only ones with open minds seem to be Sigma, RePit, and a select few others. Take care all, and have a lovely year.

reply from: cali1981

Well, so much for "sticking to the topic", eh momsquad?

How was this "not sticking to the topic"? I responded directly to part of a pro-choicer's statement about his position. This thread asks pro-choicers to state their positions on abortion. My challenge could not be more relevant.

reply from: yoda

Once again I hear you moaning, Mike........

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

I appreciate your response to my message on positivistic thinking.

You say; "I find meaning in my life from being honest enough to admit to the futility of my life."

Looks like you insist upon the walking blob of chemicals thing again. Thus, as you say, you have no alternative but to insist upon life's meaning grounded in its inherent lack of meaning. Some people would call this circular reasoning. I would simply call it (as you do) futility.

If that's your bottom line though, please let me know why it would ever make any sense to dispute anything anyone ever said at all anyway?

Regards,

Dignitarian

PS: I find meaning in my life from being honest enough to admit that no other explanation is possible.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Your statement is puzzling to me.

Your statements about "choice" do not ring true to me. For example, you don't have any reservations about supporting laws against the killing of newborn babies, do you? If not, then why on earth do you draw a "line of death" at birth? Why do you not give the same deference to someone who makes the "choice" to kill a newborn baby that you apparently give to someone who kills the unborn baby? Exactly. I don't get partial-birth abortions. How is the baby any less living when it is half-way born than when is is fully born?

reply from: bradensmommy

Your statement is puzzling to me.

Your statements about "choice" do not ring true to me. For example, you don't have any reservations about supporting laws against the killing of newborn babies, do you? If not, then why on earth do you draw a "line of death" at birth? Why do you not give the same deference to someone who makes the "choice" to kill a newborn baby that you apparently give to someone who kills the unborn baby? Exactly. I don't get partial-birth abortions. How is the baby any less living when it is half-way born than when is is fully born?

Because just like a baby monkey in a female monkey's body isn't a monkey til its born, right Sigma and Mike?

reply from: RePit

"Truth is not objective"? Depends on your definition of truth. Getting a little desperate are we? Want to discuss if a red ball is really red? Depends on your interpretation of it? Well if that is what you think - then you should accept that others believe differently to yourself and you should also respect their beliefs as well as decisions based on their beliefs. I don't believe my unborn to be worth anything because I don't want it, so I will abort it as I please.

But you are somewhat right. My belief that life is futile and meaningless and that there is no afterlife is based on faith because it is infalsifiable. Whatever belief one has about the afterlife will be based on faith and be infalsifiable, because none of us knows what happens when we pass over until we actually do so.

Now - why do I believe what I do;

Occam's Razor
1. There is no evidence to show otherwise.
2. There may be an afterlife, but there is no evidence of there being so in this world. The afterlife is in another world to ours. Since we cannot observe the other world, any inferences about it are based purely on speculation. Since it is based purely on speculation, the afterlife has infinite possibilities - as infinite as our imaginations. For all practical purposes, it should not concern us, as much as it does not concern us that tomorrow the sun could rise in the west, and the ground could turn to cheese.

Now you say "the truth is not objective". While this may be the case depending on your definition of truth, for all practical purposes we must assume that it is. Otherwise there would be no structure to anything, and all hell would break loose. We would go round and round in circles arguing if the red ball really is red.

Yes that is true. We cannot prove there is truth or not in these mystical ideas.

Here is a mystical idea. I had a premonition that on the 9th of June this year, the earths gravitational force will double. I have no evidence of it other than my premonition. God told me so in a dream and I believe it. Everyone should immediately start make preparations, buildings and structures will collapse, tides will be affected, mountains will move, great disruption will cause millions to die. You should start weight training else you will find walking difficult after the transition. You had better start stocking up the emergency supply now before all hell breaks loose.

Now is it reasonable to expect people to act on my premonition? Is it reasonable for them not to act on it? Why should they believe me when I have no evidence other than my word? Same goes for anything else 'mystical'. You should not expect others to believe in your mystical ideas just because you do. While you have right to be respected for whatever beliefs you have, you better not try and expect others to believe you or act as though your belief is true unless you can show some proof. Why the hell should they?

Why should I believe the unplanned unborn have any worth if you cannot show me? Why should I not have an abortion when you cannot show me what value my unborn child has?

I cannot say they are wrong. But I can fairly say they are making it up, or heard it from someone who is making it up. How else could they have come up with such an idea when they cannot show any evidence? Maybe they really were abducted by aliens, why should I believe it if they cannot show me any proof?

Is this question for real or are you just being difficult?

I can prove someone has value by kidnapping them, sitting back and watching the reaction.
I can prove something has value by selling it.

Value is a matter of economics. If somebody wants something or finds a use for it, it has value. I can prove to you that my peanut butter sandwich has value by selling it on EBay or by swapping it with my friends Mars Bar - which also has value. Of course, value is not limited to monetary value. However, since the world revolves around money just about everything can be assigned a monetary value - even a persons life. Sometimes this value is rather arbitrary and a thing can be given different value depending on the market or other circumstances.

Firstly - if the truth is not objective, then this statement is completely pointless. My guess is as good as anyone else's, so I can kill whoever I please.

I don't think you are going to understand this so I am not going to waste my time explaining it. You probably have no interest in anything I have to say anyway. Instead - here is an exercise for you so you can work it out yourself if you really are interested. Grab a piece of paper. Make three columns. First column is the list below. In second column, write down 10 things that society values about those general categories of people. In the third column, think of one particular person who fits into the category, and write down 10 things that you personally value about that person.

celebrities
schoolchildren
white people
black people
woman
doctors
homeless people
very young children
foetuses
brutal serial killers

You are probably going to get stuck on some of the categories - if you do - try to think reasons why you have gotten stuck. To help you think of reasons for value - think of what would happen if they suddenly disappeared.

If you actually do manage to think of 10 for the foetuses - let me know what they are.

Chew chew.... Here is how it works; when you were conceived - you had no value. When your mother found she was pregnant with you - well I don't know what value you had at that moment - that would depend on your mothers reaction. When your mother made the decision to carry you to term, from that moment on you had value, because from that moment your mother wanted you to be born.

reply from: Ginger

Hi,
I am new to this site and would like some feedback. I've been pro-choice for as long as I can remember. I, unfortunately had an abortion 18 years ago for personal reasons. I am a sympathetic person who can't stand to see others in pain. When I saw the pictures of the aborted babies, my heart ached for the pain my baby felt while being aborted.
My confusion is with the legalities of abortion. In a perfect world all babies would be wanted. If abortion is made illegal, will that deter women from having them? The answer is no. My concern is for both the baby and the mother's safety. I have friends who remember women inserting bicycle spokes inside them and dying from either infection or bleeding. That is why I just don't know where I stand now.
As for me, I was very traumatized after my abortion and decided that I would never have another one. Who am I though to tell other women in crisis what they should or should not do with their bodies?

reply from: Sigma

Eh? What does this have to do with me?

reply from: RePit

Hi Ginger. Welcome.

If you are confused about the legality of abortion in he context of the United States, there are a couple of threads debating this. - particularly in the context of the US constitution.

Sorry about you feeling traumatised from your abortion. I think people who are traumatised by pictures of aborted babies will probably be traumatised by an abortion. That's why I think its a good idea to show to someone before they have an abortion. To show a balanced outlook - they should also be aided to comprehend a realistic view of what it is like to raise a child and how raising a child will affect their life. Being able to down to the local pro-life counselling centre for "free nappies" might help, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the realities of parenthood.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Welcome to ProLifeAmerica!

reply from: bradensmommy

Eh? What does this have to do with me?

Because you were the one that said in another thread that a baby isn't a baby til its born.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I just can't see how you remain pro-choice after looking at the aboriton pictures.

reply from: bradensmommy

it doesn't effect them, just like if murderers are shown pictures of thier victims.

reply from: dignitarian

Dear RePit:

You lectured cali1981 as follows.

(Quote)

"Here is a mystical idea. I had a premonition that on the 9th of June this year, the earths gravitational force will double. I have no evidence of it other than my premonition. God told me so in a dream and I believe it. Everyone should immediately start make preparations, buildings and structures will collapse, tides will be affected, mountains will move, great disruption will cause millions to die. You should start weight training else you will find walking difficult after the transition. You had better start stocking up the emergency supply now before all hell breaks loose.

Now is it reasonable to expect people to act on my premonition? Is it reasonable for them not to act on it? Why should they believe me when I have no evidence other than my word? Same goes for anything else 'mystical'. You should not expect others to believe in your mystical ideas just because you do. While you have right to be respected for whatever beliefs you have, you better not try and expect others to believe you or act as though your belief is true unless you can show some proof. Why the hell should they?

Why should I believe the unplanned unborn have any worth if you cannot show me? Why should I not have an abortion when you cannot show me what value my unborn child has?"

(Unquote)

Well here is my mystical idea.

I had a premonition that every Being of Human Origin is a mysterious creation of inestimable intrinsic worth. God told me so in a dream and I believe it.

However, it just so happens that this “premonition” of mine is also the only and absolute basis in reason for the following minimum standards of common good.

Equality under the Law for ALL

Equal Protection of Life, Liberty, and Happiness for ALL

Equal Justice for ALL

Equal Freedom for ALL

Equal Rights for ALL

Equality of Civil Rights for ALL

Tyranny of the Majority can not be Tolerated

Tyranny of Human Slavery can not be Tolerated

Tyranny of Genocide can not be Tolerated – under any circumstances, for any group, either for Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Physical Ability, Mental Acuity, or Age.

These standards also happen to reflect the tough lessons history has taught us - over and over and over again.

You can imply they are the result of my personal premonition all you want, and in a way you might actually be right. However then, they must also be the “premonitions” from the experience of the ages. These so-called premonitions carry a collective wisdom, the mere scope of which you and I could only hope to one day comprehend.

RePit, Sigma, and Mourningmike; what kind of a school did you guys go to anyway? For cryin out loud, if the study of man has taught us anything at all; THIS IS IT!

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

While it all sounds good, the whole point is that you are going to have to prove it to me before I will believe you.

Do you believe that all human beings have inestimable intrinsic worth? Can you prove it? Maybe you should start a thread on intrinsic human worth.

reply from: Sigma

Really? I don't recall this, which thread was it?

reply from: middypie

Hi All, this is my first post, but I have been traveling this site quite frequently, and reading through the forums. Wow, you guys can be tough. I have been posting on prochoice forums for a few weeks now, just to try to understand... because I don't. But I was called names, treated like an uneducated fool etc... So I was really hoping to come here and talk to some intelligent people but.... I only see a few. Is it possible to talk about abortion, give different viewpoints, stories, opinions, without calling names and being condescending? Nothing is EVER black and white, everyone is raised different, has a different story to tell, has a system of beliefs that is different than yours. Does that make them a blithering idiot? Or a hardened criminal? Ummm, no. I guess I am one of those detestable middle of the roaders. I like to think I am prolife, but I do think there are exceptions. Would you like to carry your fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins baby for 9 months and give birth at 14y/0? It DOES happen!! I think that abortion is horrifying past 9 or 10 weeks, particularly partial birth (don't care if it is not medical tx, it is what happens). And I think that women who think it is okay to have abortions, just because it is inconvienent to have a baby, need to be forced to look at pictures, ultrasounds, vidoes etc.... Because that is just plain murder. And I do not think it is necessary to torment a woman who already had one, especially when she regrets it, geez, anyone ever hear the word compassion? So..... that is my stance, sorry if you can't handle that it is different than yours. Thats the right I have for being #1 a human being #2 an American

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, mp!

Abortion is a very controversial, emotional subject, mp, so there will be strong feelings expressed here. But if you're looking for reasoned debate, just engage others in that fashion, and most of the time others will reciprocate.

From what I've heard women say, "carrying" isn't something that's done because you "like it". It is a burden, to some degree, for every woman. And yes, knowing that your child was fathered by a close relative or a rapist would certainly add to that burden. On the other hand, try to take the view of the child so concieved for a moment. What has he/she done to deserve being killed? What has anyone done that justifies killing an innocent baby? Isn't that like killing an innocent bystander, instead of the perpetrator?

I think you will find that in general Prolifers have a lot more compassion that Proaborts. I've never seen a Prolifer "torment" anyone just because they have had an abortion. In point of fact, some of the finest Prolife debaters I've known have been post-abortive women who regret their abortions and want to prevent others from making the same mistake. The only time I've seen hostility shown towards a post-abortive woman is when she expresses pride and/or satisfaction in what she's done, and tries to convince others to do the same.

reply from: bradensmommy

Really? I don't recall this, which thread was it?

I don't have time to look for it, but if you didn't I apologize for pointing fingers but I do recall where Mike said something similar to it.

reply from: middypie

Yoda,
See, you are the type of person I have been looking for! It is nice to talk to someone who will debate in a civilized manner. Let me just explain, that I defenitly consider myself more prolife than prochoice. I have to disagree, I have seen women tormented, harrassed, whatever you want to call it about having an abortion, even when she did regret it. And I myself am disgusted by women who are just proud as peach pie that they had an abortion, and try to push other women into making the same decision. I think you have a good point about incest/rape victims. But, from a womans point of view(you are a guy?, if not sorry no offense intended), one who has 2 children and another on the way, I can look at things from another angle, and see how terribly difficult and disgusting it would be to be in that situation, so I think I will have to stick to my viewpoint on that one. I don't think it is an excuse to murder a viable fetus in such a horrible way, but I would hope people might be less condeming if it was a 5 or 6 week pregnancy that was aborted, and I feel the sin would be on the incestors head(hmmmm, does it work that way?). Anyways, I think I stated earlier, nothing is EVER in black and white, I wish people could just be more understanding of all situations, not just the abortion debate, of course that would make the world a better place, and as we all know the world is just full of lovely happenings right now! I look forward to talking to you again Yoda.

reply from: galen

Middy,

Please take a look at the studies on fetal pain posted in this forum... you might find them interesting.

mary

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Thanks for your response to my statement regarding the intrinsic value of human life and the necessary impact to the Common Good.

You claim:

(Quote)

While it all sounds good, the whole point is that you are going to have to prove it to me before I will believe you.

(Unquote)

Why do I have to prove it to you? Mathematically of course your statement quoted above is not incorrect, but based upon common sense it is nonetheless irrational. Look, if someone wanted you to play Russian roulette, could they convince you to pull the trigger just because no one could prove that there was a cartridge resting against the firing pin?

Thus the Point:

In the event where it is clearly possible we could cause an immeasurable harm, but we are not certain of it, we MUST assume we will. I think you and I likely first learned this lesson from our parents when they insisted we always look both ways before we crossed the street. Did it ever occur to you to demand proof that cars were indeed approaching before you did so?

Any rational person whether they are pro-life or pro-choice can at least admit to the immeasurable value of a human life regardless of how they want to define it. They believe in it because they understand its immense impact upon the Common Good. If anyone can't admit to this much I would be forced to ask why they might even bother with the dialogue here. Typically, the disagreement is more associated with the pro-choice insistence on the timing of this human characteristic. You're really in a minority anywhere in the civilized world if you insist upon no intrinsic human value under any circumstances.

In legally sanctioning the killing of the unborn for the sake of economy, convenience, and privacy; at the very least we risk the possibility of an immeasurable harm. This is true not only for the unborn child, but it is also true for the culture at large. Because as we continue to selectively qualify our measure of intrinsic human value, we continue to degrade intrinsic human value itself - AND the Common Good that depends so highly upon it.

You ask for proof of intrinsic human value. Well perhaps I can't give you what you want. However, history's proof of its denial is simply too ugly to miss.

Regards,

Dignitarian

PS: This doesn't deserve a new thread. You are right where you ought to be.

reply from: RePit

You better not walk outside anymore because you might tread on the fairies and cause immeasurable harm. Please don't stomp on the fairies.

reply from: dignitarian

You better not walk outside anymore because you might tread on the fairies and cause immeasurable harm. Please don't stomp on the fairies.

Well, it looks like we can consider this case closed.

Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

I haven't found that to be typical of Prolifers that I know. There are exceptions in every group.

Yes, I am male, and I acknowledge that you have stated the POV of some women accurately. What puzzles me is your seeming reluctance to discuss this issue from the baby's POV. Try to do that for a moment, and think how you have never seen the light of day, don't know anything about anyone, and yet you are to be killed because of the actions of someone you have never seen. How does that make you feel?

reply from: RePit

Too right it is. But first I think I should clarify some things and give you a proper response to your last post.

Belief in the intrinsic value of human life is based on faith, because you cannot prove it. If you believe it due to faith, then you cannot expect others to as well.

You say that negative outcomes have resulted from the historic of denial of such a concept of intrinsic human value. You could infer that if everyone did believe in immeasurable intrinsic human worth, that such things like war would not occur. But likewise I could infer - if humans had the intelligence of a fish, things like war would not occur. Therefore you could just as easily attribute war etc. to human intelligence as you can attribute it to lack of respect for intrinsic human worth.

Recidivism is human nature. Humans do not learn from the past because they forget. Hate, war, slavery and other such attrocities are a result of humans being human. You speak of humans having a right to express what it means to be human. Part of what it means to be human is the darker side of human nature. Hating, showing disregard for others, greed, jealousy, contempt, dishonesty, etc. It's all part of the human package. Just as humans are capable of love and searching for higher truth, they are capable of these other things. You really are looking at the world with rose-coloured glasses if you think these negative human emotions along with the negative effects can be conquered by global recognition of "intrinsic human worth". Seriously, humans don't give a toss. They will let their neighbors die because they have more important things in their own lives to worry about.

I do not see why concluding the unborn has little worth is irrational. I can logically rationalise it, and if you try the exersise I presented in an earlier post that I have also tried, you too may be able to see why (or at least why I think) the unborn are of lessor worth. But I know you are not really interested in how I came to my conclusion, other than you want to find faults in my reasoning. So you probably have not done the exersise. All you have done so far is pick on little tid-bits of my arguments. Did you actually try to get the big picture of what I am saying? I doubt you have. It might be a good idea if you try to understand, because only then can you really counter argue the concepts I have presented. But if you can't be arsed or you are in denial that I am right, well good for you, and thanks for wasting my time ::sarcasm::. I have sometimes acknowledged when you have made a good point and have shown me to be inconsistant or incorrect. You have not done the same for me.

As for the gun analogy - the answer is no, because it has been proven to me before that pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger is a dangerous thing to do. If I had not had that proven to me before (eg Perhaps I come from a remote village in the Amazon and never seen or heard of a gun) then I would play, because the danger has not yet been proven to me.

I'm in a minority? How did you come to that conclusion?

"No intrinsic human value under any circumstances?" Intrinsic implys that it is universal and is applicable under all circumstances. Circumstance is irrelevant if it really is intrinsic. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by intrinsic human worth. If I have misuderstood can you please clarify.

reply from: Tam

it doesn't effect them, just like if murderers are shown pictures of thier victims.

Hey, wait a minute. I agree that it's murder--but re-read her post and you will see that it did affect her, for precisely that reason, and it brought her to this forum. She doesn't want abortion. She just doesn't want women dying in back alleys. That's a really common dilemma--it had me stumped for awhile, too--and we should deal with that. Someone who genuinely doesn't like abortion and, in her words, doesn't know where she even stands about it now, but is concerned about the fallout from criminalizing it, is usually a future prolifer. Pretend she's me, five years ago, and treat her that way. Just a thought.

reply from: yoda

Individual, personal values have nothing to do with "rationality" or logic. They are our emotional attitude toward the subject upon which we individually place a value.

Your emotional attitude towards unborn humans is quite obvious.

reply from: Tam

I've had some ideas along those lines, but others seem to hate them. I'm surprised to see you suggesting it. Would you support requiring a woman about to abort her pregnancy to have informed consent, having been shown

1) pictures of unborn children of the age of her child
2) an ultrasound of her own child
3) a description of the abortion procedure she is considering buying
4) pictures of aborted children of the age of her child

among other things?

reply from: bradensmommy

I've had some ideas along those lines, but others seem to hate them. I'm surprised to see you suggesting it. Would you support requiring a woman about to abort her pregnancy to have informed consent, having been shown

1) pictures of unborn children of the age of her child
2) an ultrasound of her own child
3) a description of the abortion procedure she is considering buying
4) pictures of aborted children of the age of her child

among other things?

Now you know Tam that is against freedom of "choice"! No woman who wants to kill her child needs to see or hear the truth, just get it over with so she can go back home and wait for another gentleman caller.

reply from: Tam

Now you know Tam that is against freedom of "choice"! No woman who wants to kill her child needs to see or hear the truth, just get it over with so she can go back home and wait for another gentleman caller.

LOL Right, because they know if she knew what she was "choosing" she'd more often than not run, not walk, in the opposite direction. Many women realize it before they enter the abortuary--those who don't, should learn it before they make a mistake that takes a life.

reply from: RePit

1) yes
2) Only if she wants to. Ultrasounds cost money that could be better spent helping other people.
3) yes
4) yes

These are all providing they are accurate pictures. I am not so sure that some of the pictures on the pro-life sites are accurate, but if they are authentic, I have no problem with it.

reply from: Tam

1) yes
2) Only if she wants to. Ultrasounds cost money that could be better spent helping other people.
3) yes
4) yes

These are all providing they are accurate pictures. I am not so sure that some of the pictures on the pro-life sites are accurate, but if they are authentic, I have no problem with it.

Well, that's refreshing. You're the first person on the pro-abortion side of the debate that I have ever seen endorse even those three things. I guess I'm not too surprised that helping OTHER people, when it comes to the ultrasound, is more important to you than helping the person whose life is on the line and might be saved by an ultrasound (it's hardter to go through with killing your baby once you've seen her/his face).

So if a bill were crafted that required all four of those things, you'd oppose it because you think ultrasound isn't necessary? Or would you support it?

reply from: yoda

Hey, that's easy to resolve: just go to a proabort/prochoie site and get some photos of aborted babies there, since they claim all ours are "fake".... oh wait, they don't have any, do they? Well, just go to...... hmmm.... what other sources are there?

reply from: dignitarian

Repit:

I’ve made my case in regards to intrinsic human worth, its basis in reason, and its positive impact on rights and the common good. The objective on my part is not necessarily to convince you of anything, but rather it is more to clarify these concepts for other interested readers.

I have to admit your responses are interesting and in a way and I would love to respond, but your points reflect mere quibbling at this stage, and for this purpose; I am sorry, but I simply can not afford the time.

Take a look at my postings total of 117 since November of 2004. Some writers have beat that in the last two or three weeks. The point is, unless I recognize a real value to my posting I usually don’t bother.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

I would oppose it, because I know it would be a waste of time and money giving an ultrasound on someone who really didn't want one. I know I for one - if I were going for an abortion and they made me have an ultrasound I probably wouldn't bother looking at it. Even if I did see the ultrasound, I doubt it would change my mind anyway. I've watched silent scream and other pro-life movies, the foetuses in trash cans, holding the little coins, little arms and legs - and that didn't change the way I think about abortion.

Yeah, I know it's gross thinking of foetuses being sucked out, but I also know what it's like to be a parent unexpectedly. I gave up my dreams to "raise" children (so the family could stay together after mum died to make it easier for the kids), but only temporarily until my sister finishes school. I only have to have my life on hold till the end of this year. If I had a baby instead of inheriting 3 teenages, I would never be able to follow my dreams - my whole life would be reduced to staying at home cleaning up baby vomit.

Someone who watches those films and runs out of the room crying probably shouldn't have an abortion. That's why they should see them, it would be a good gauge to how they would handle it emotionally. I don't cry watching them because I know what the alternative entails.

There are much more important things to spend money on than a ultrasound no one is going to look at.

reply from: RePit

same here, i am getting tired too.

I can't remember if it was you that posted that link on the three levels of happiness; but I thought I had read it before. I just remembered where it is from - Aristotle's Ethics. Yes, all very interesting but tiring sometimes - I know what you mean.

Edit: Just realised that the founding fathers probably studied Aristotle and Plato, so makes sense they would base their ideas on those philosophers teachings.

reply from: cali1981

How is that a consistent position? Would you say that if you don't believe your three-year-old to be worth anything because you don't want him/her, you may kill him/her as you please? Should I respect that belief and that decision?

The law says that all human beings are equal. I agree. That's partly why I'm proud to be an American.

Thank you for spelling this out, but I really have no interest in a debate about the afterlife. I really have no opinion on this. I am here to debate abortion.

Mystical ideas are different from believing (or not believing) that a person has worth. Why should we believe that ANYONE has worth if it cannot be shown? Why not allow ANYONE to kill ANYONE ELSE? Do you believe that we should do that, since we can't prove that anybody has any value? You can't prove to me that you have value; should I be allowed to kill you?

Nobody is saying that you "should believe" it. I am simply saying that mystical ideas are on a plane of reality that CAN'T be proven on the DIFFERENT plane on which we live. You cannot tell whether they are true or false. There is no "default" option.

Of course it's for real.

That's not proving that either of those things has value. It's showing that a particular individual or group values them.

Absolutely. You're proving my point - that value depends entirely on an individual person and what he/she finds important. Therefore, it is meaningless to make an argument that abortion should be allowed because the child has no value. NOTHING and NO ONE has intrinsic value! Value is in the eyes of the beholder. Yet, our constitution does not set standards for "value" before someone's life may be protected. EVERYONE is entitled to live free from being killed! "No deprivation of life" is one of our RIGHTS! "Value" has no place in this discussion except to say that it is clear from our Constitution that all people are to be EQUALLY "valued" in the eyes of the law.

I'm a pretty sharp guy. I think I would understand it.

If I had no interest, I would not be on this forum.

This is probably one of the easiest exercises that you could have given me. I value each and every one of the people on that list - without having an example for each one - for ONE REASON and ONE REASON only - that they are HUMAN. I value my fellow humans because I believe that all people - regardless of age, color or what they contribute (or don't contribute) to society - are equal in worth. And guess what? That position is supported by our constitution. Indeed, the idea that "all are created equal" was the very foundation of our country.

We don't need to think of 10 reasons to value ANYONE. That's a completely arbitrary number assigned by YOU. And anyway, I doubt you could come up with any more reasons to value just-born children than you think I could for fetuses.

Wrong answer. I always had value because I was human. If my mother decided TODAY that she didn't want me, that wouldn't change my value. If she'd decided that YESTERDAY it wouldn't have changed my value. If she'd decided last MONTH...last YEAR...TEN years ago...TWENTY years ago...and all the way on back to the beginning of my life...that still wouldn't have changed it. My value and my right not to be killed do not change simply because one person does or does not "want" me at a given point in time. My value as a human being is inherent, and the constitution of my country recognizes this.

reply from: RePit

This is probably one of the easiest exercises that you could have given me. I value each and every one of the people on that list - without having an example for each one - for ONE REASON and ONE REASON only - that they are HUMAN. I value my fellow humans because I believe that all people - regardless of age, color or what they contribute (or don't contribute) to society - are equal in worth. And guess what? That position is supported by our constitution. Indeed, the idea that "all are created equal" was the very foundation of our country.

We don't need to think of 10 reasons to value ANYONE. That's a completely arbitrary number assigned by YOU. And anyway, I doubt you could come up with any more reasons to value just-born children than you think I could for fetuses.

Yes - 10 is a completely arbitary number. Feel free to pick a different number if you wish, but if your number is lower than 3 the exercise will not show much.

Your response to the exercise shows you value a person soley because they are human and on that alone. You are either being dishonest with yourself, or you have the emotions of a robot. I will not waste my time on someone who cannot be honest with themselves, or robots for that matter.

reply from: yoda

Hmmm...... assigning value to humanity is dishonest or unemotional?

Hmmm..... someone has issues.

reply from: cali1981

Three? NOW, why is it three? That's just as arbitrary as 10.

How is it "robotic" or dishonest to value someone solely because they are human? The Constitution doesn't require any other characteristic for someone to be given rights. Just being human is enough. You know, the whole all-are-created-equal idea?

I'd like to see you back up your statements. If you think that there should be at least three reasons to value someone before they are given the right to live or any other right, then I'd like to see YOUR three reasons for everyone on that list - especially very young children, brutal serial killers, homeless people, and why don't we throw in just-born children?

reply from: Tam

Hah! Cali really has your number. What a blatant dodge. His post thoroughly creamed yours on every point, and your ONLY reply is to take the most ridiculous idea in your entire ridiculous post and make it even more arbitrary and even more ridiculous ("if your number is lower than 3"... LOL!!!).

*bzzzt* Care to try again??

How is that a consistent position? Would you say that if you don't believe your three-year-old to be worth anything because you don't want him/her, you may kill him/her as you please? Should I respect that belief and that decision?

The law says that all human beings are equal. I agree. That's partly why I'm proud to be an American.

Mystical ideas are different from believing (or not believing) that a person has worth. Why should we believe that ANYONE has worth if it cannot be shown? Why not allow ANYONE to kill ANYONE ELSE? Do you believe that we should do that, since we can't prove that anybody has any value? You can't prove to me that you have value; should I be allowed to kill you?

Of course it's for real.

That's not proving that either of those things has value. It's showing that a particular individual or group values them.

Absolutely. You're proving my point - that value depends entirely on an individual person and what he/she finds important. Therefore, it is meaningless to make an argument that abortion should be allowed because the child has no value. NOTHING and NO ONE has intrinsic value! Value is in the eyes of the beholder. Yet, our constitution does not set standards for "value" before someone's life may be protected. EVERYONE is entitled to live free from being killed! "No deprivation of life" is one of our RIGHTS! "Value" has no place in this discussion except to say that it is clear from our Constitution that all people are to be EQUALLY "valued" in the eyes of the law.

I'm a pretty sharp guy. I think I would understand it.

If I had no interest, I would not be on this forum.

This is probably one of the easiest exercises that you could have given me. I value each and every one of the people on that list - without having an example for each one - for ONE REASON and ONE REASON only - that they are HUMAN. I value my fellow humans because I believe that all people - regardless of age, color or what they contribute (or don't contribute) to society - are equal in worth. And guess what? That position is supported by our constitution. Indeed, the idea that "all are created equal" was the very foundation of our country.

We don't need to think of 10 reasons to value ANYONE. That's a completely arbitrary number assigned by YOU. And anyway, I doubt you could come up with any more reasons to value just-born children than you think I could for fetuses.

Wrong answer. I always had value because I was human. If my mother decided TODAY that she didn't want me, that wouldn't change my value. If she'd decided that YESTERDAY it wouldn't have changed my value. If she'd decided last MONTH...last YEAR...TEN years ago...TWENTY years ago...and all the way on back to the beginning of my life...that still wouldn't have changed it. My value and my right not to be killed do not change simply because one person does or does not "want" me at a given point in time. My value as a human being is inherent, and the constitution of my country recognizes this.

Even that response is full of blatant dodges. ("Is this question for real?" "I don't think you would understand so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it." etc!)

Come on! I cry foul!

reply from: RePit

Just-born children is what I meant by very young children; but if you want to be pedantic, then feel free to add just-born children as well. You can pick any number you wish, but if you want to be stubborn and insist that 10 or 3 is arbitrary, fine - thats your prerogative. Just goes to show you really don't have any interest. I can't be bothered wasting my time on someone who doesn't want to take the effort to understand what I am saying. If you can't be open minded and honest enough to do the exercise, you have no hope in hell understanding. If I told you the sky is blue, you would waste two pages arguing with me that it is not blue because sometimes it is grey, sometimes it is red; just because I am pro-choice and therefore must be wrong. I have limited patience for the stubborn and the argumentative.

It is no wonder you have never found a "pro-choicer whose position is logically defensible" - because your eyes are closed and fingers are in your ears and you refuse to acknowledge or make an effort to understand anything a pro-choicer says unless it is spoon fed to you.

You are jumping the gun. No - I do not think that there should be at least three, or even ten reasons to value someone before they get any rights. That is not the conclusion of the exercise. You think you know where I am going with this, but this response shows you don't know squat.

If you honestly value everyone equally; for the sole reason that they are human, and on that alone; then I sure would not want to be your wife - you would value me the same as you would any stranger. You like your best friend solely because they are human? Is that all people are to you - living and human? If Mother Teresa and Hilter ran out in front of your car and you could only avoid hitting and killing one of them, it would be 50-50 for you because you value them equally. Same with a complete stranger and the love of your life; 50-50. Pretty sad life you must have.

That is why it is "robotic" or perhaps one could say "autistic". Either that or you do not value all persons equally, in which case your response is not an honest one.

reply from: yoda

This is a prime example of a probabykiller diversionary tactic. Please don't respond to personal taunts and/or insults like this.

reply from: cali1981

RePit...I am not being stubborn. I have extremely limited time and I believe you could make your point without asking me to do an exercise. I have already told you that I could come up with one reason for each of those groups, and that's the furthest I could go in doing the exercise. The groups certainly have different characteristics, such as their developmental abilities and what they bring to society, but those don't make any difference in the value I - or our Constitution - assigns to them.

Oh, come on! That could not be further from the truth. I have gone back and forth with you and other pro-choicers trying to get you to articulate your point, because more than most pro-lifers, I want to understand how they justify this horrible act. I am trying EXTREMELY HARD to understand! Now PLEASE EXPLAIN this exercise, as I have done it to the extent that I am able.

Wow, insults - what a great way to respond to my question. Just kidding - an ACTUAL RESPONSE would be great. I do NOT think that I know where you are going with this. I told you that I could only think of one reason for each of those groups. Now I think you can make your point, and tell us all the point of this exercise.

RePit, your discussion thus far has not been about the value of strangers versus familiar people. It has been about the value of the various developmental levels and racial groups of people, and other distinctions as well. This is a whole different ball of wax. Of course the people who are close to me have more value to me than others, because they provide me with many forms of support so that I may live my life comfortably and happily. But that was not the question you asked.

It is not "robotic" to love and value two people equally even though one may contribute more to society than another. That is not my criterion for whether I personally value someone, nor the Constitution's criterion. YOU may think that makes a difference in the amount of value we should give to someone, but that doesn't make your country's philosophy on it - or anyone else's - invalid in any way.

reply from: cali1981

This is what I might call the Dodge Post, or a post wherein I point out all the things I said that you didn't address in your response.

Feel free to actually come up with a response to all of my well-thought-out points here, as well as the post I just made before this.

reply from: RePit

You could have done the exercise days ago and we would have moved on by now. The exercise has two aspects. One is how people are valued by society. The other how you personally value people. It shows there is a difference between these sets of values. If you think society values all people equally for the sole reason they are human, I'm telling you that you are wrong. It may be in the constitution, but what we practice and what we preach are two different things. You personally do not even value people equally. No one does. The exercise shows a number of other important conclusions. Such as there is no logical difference in value between black and white people. However celebrities are valued in society more than homeless people, and there are logical reasons for this. There are some further conclusions, but since you do can't be bothered doing the exercise, I am not going to spoon feed you any longer. As for your personal values not being the question I asked - actually it was - the third column to the exercise was all about personal values where you choose an actual person and evaluate them using your personal values. Now you have put a lot of effort in to your posts, but you have not put much effort into the exercise. If you had put as much effort into the exercise as you have into your posts, we would have been finished days ago. That is why I believe you are not being sincere. I am not wasting any more time with you, I am not going to spoon feed you, I have several other points to make yet, and if I am going to have to fight you the whole way, I am not interested.

reply from: RePit

Lame dodge!

When you guys read a book and get to a part that you don't understand, or don't agree with; do you say "lame" and throw the whole book away? Or do you read on in hope that your questions may be answered later on? I'm guessing the former.

reply from: cali1981

Tam's right - that WAS a lame dodge. I am not trying to fight ANYONE. I told you that I did the exercise as far as I was able. You, on the other hand, could have made this point WITHOUT the exercise (as you JUST DID) and I would have understood it (as I JUST DID). If anything, the EXERCISE was a way of "spoon-feeding" because it was so drawn out and the person you're speaking to would have understood without all the roundabout examples.

Anyway, now that you've FINALLY explained the point of this whole thing, I'd like you to explain how this is relevant to the abortion debate and to the legality of abortion in general. Value really has no place in this discussion because it is subjective. We don't grant rights based on how much society values a certain person; everyone still has the same rights! Again, HOW is any of this relevant?

I have done nothing disrespectful to you and nothing to show that I am not interested in a discussion. I have merely asked you continually to justify your claims and their relevance to this particular debate. I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. Please do so.

reply from: Tam

Lame dodge!

When you guys read a book and get to a part that you don't understand, or don't agree with; do you say "lame" and throw the whole book away? Or do you read on in hope that your questions may be answered later on? I'm guessing the former.

Wow, following up the lame dodge with a lame insult! If you actually made a salient point, that'd be impressive. This nonsense is not.

reply from: RePit

Lame dodge!

When you guys read a book and get to a part that you don't understand, or don't agree with; do you say "lame" and throw the whole book away? Or do you read on in hope that your questions may be answered later on? I'm guessing the former.

Wow, following up the lame dodge with a lame insult! If you actually made a salient point, that'd be impressive. This nonsense is not.

Wow, your responses have been really insightful.
/end sarcasm

reply from: RePit

Yes, it was lame. To tell you the truth, I couldn't be bothered responding, especially when I do not feel you are bothering to think for yourself. I did not respond because I did not wish to respond and point inconsistancies in your points, because I would like to stay on topic - the topic being my position as a pro-choicer. But I guess I will have to respond; or else you will probably never get it. I have prepared a response for your "dodge" post, and will post it shortly.

My apologies. I thought you were a smart guy and I thought you could have worked it out yourself - I guess I was wrong. I prefer a teaching/explaining style of providing exercises to promote and encourage others to think of their own conclusions. If you had done the exercise as presented (from your responses I doubt you even comprehended what the exercise entailed), you may have come up with other points I had not thought of, and we both could have learnt something. Surely that is preferable to me spoon-feeding you "the answer" - as my conclusions may not be the best. But if we both come up with the same conclusions, not only does it give those conclusions more credibility, but it also shows you understand the conclusions.

Knowing what you do now about the conclusions I had from the exercise, are you willing try the exercise again, or are you going to stick to your initial conclusions that all are valued equally in society?

It does not have anything directly to do with the abortion debate, it is just one piece of the puzzle. If you stick with me and don't p*ss me off too much, I promise I will finish the puzzle. For the moment I am going to await your response before I continue.

reply from: RePit

I don't know, you tell me. You are the one who said the truth is not objective.

I responded saying that I disagree with your statement that the truth is not objective, but if you are correct and the truth is not objective, then what ever any particular person believes - goes, because there is no absolute truth. You are the one being inconsistant.

The constitution may say "all men are created equal". That's a different thing from society valuing and treating everyone equally (which doesn't happen). A different thing again is the law treating all equally (which doesn't happen). And another thing again that all have equal rights (which isn't true) or even have so-called inalienable rights. I will elaborate on this later.

Are you expecting a response from this? I acknowledge that I have read the above.

I will get to this later, providing I have enough patience.

I have already explained this. Occam's Razor. The "default" option is that ideas beyond our plane of reality do not concern the reality in which we live.

These two statements seem logically inconsistant to me. What do you think value is?

This also seems logically inconsistant.

reply from: Tam

Lame dodge!

When you guys read a book and get to a part that you don't understand, or don't agree with; do you say "lame" and throw the whole book away? Or do you read on in hope that your questions may be answered later on? I'm guessing the former.

Wow, following up the lame dodge with a lame insult! If you actually made a salient point, that'd be impressive. This nonsense is not.

Wow, your responses have been really insightful.
/end sarcasm

Apparently so, since immediately after complaining, you admit that I was right on the money.

Yes, it was lame. To tell you the truth, I couldn't be bothered responding

reply from: yoda

Next you're going to say "nya nya nya nya"...... right?

reply from: Tam

Funny, that's what everyone is wondering about you, given your conversation with Cali. I'm just pointing out the blatantly obvious--that you keep dodging. And now you're switching gears to be insulting to me for pointing it out, even though you admit that it's true. You keep doing it, even while insulting those who have the gall to notice that you're doing it. LOL

If you think you're so smart, turn that powerful brain to the task of responding to the questions and issues you've been so unsubtly dodging for days now. Frankly, your latest (full of "do you expect a response to this?" and "I'll get to this later if I have the patience" and "I already explained this") is yet another in a long string of unimpressive responses. If it makes you feel better about yourself to put me down, that says more about you than it does about me. If you take it as an insult that I point out something you damn well know you're doing and already admitted was true, that's just your way of finding some excuse to lash out rather than address the issues.

Considered politics as a career? You should. You'd make a great Abortion Party candidate. (For those who don't get that, "Abortion Party" is Ann Coulter's nickname for the Democrats, since it seems to be the only issue they really care about.)

reply from: RePit

LOL. I havn't seen you address any issues in the last couple of pages. I know you have a brain, and I know what you are doing. You are stalling the debate with trivial points. And I know why - you don't have any useful arguments, so you will wait till Cali comes to the rescue.

I have already said - I will address all the issues in due time. I want to clarify some issues with Cali before I move on. It's called discussion - one in which you are not participating very effectively.

Edit: until you do start participating more effectively than you are now, I will no longer respond to your posts.

reply from: yoda

In this millenium or the next one?

reply from: bartman

I have given much thought to how somebody can contemplate the abortion issue for more than a brief moment and actually come out pro-abortion. I mean, yes, the lies the pro-abort philosophy rest on are clever, and the slogans used to tap into our desire for freedom are slick, but come on. If you can't see that science has PROVEN the unborn are living human beings and abortion kills those living human beings there must be something at the very basic level of your cognition that is out of whack.

Perhaps pro-aborts are overcome with lust for precious individual "freedom" at a all costs, even a human life. Or perhaps the pro-abort has an abortion in his/her past they are tryiing desperately to justify in order to keep away those terribly incomfortable feelings of grief, shame, and guilt. To accomplish this, they can stare a cold hard fact directly in the face and deny it. I think for the real hard-core, radical pro-aborts, both are at play.

Just a thought.

reply from: Tam

LOL. I havn't seen you address any issues in the last couple of pages. I know you have a brain, and I know what you are doing. You are stalling the debate with trivial points. And I know why - you don't have any useful arguments, so you will wait till Cali comes to the rescue.

I have already said - I will address all the issues in due time. I want to clarify some issues with Cali before I move on. It's called discussion - one in which you are not participating very effectively.

Edit: until you do start participating more effectively than you are now, I will no longer respond to your posts.

LOL I consider pointing out your dodges to be quite effective--I don't think anyone would believe you at this point if you claimed that had Cali and I not pointed it out, you'd have stopped dodging.....oh, wait, you still haven't stopped dodging, but you're at least trying to seem as though you have, that's a start! As for your not responding when I point out your evasive maneuvers--great! If you refrain from random posts complaining that my pointing out your admitted dodging was mean, that'll be quite refreshing. When you get around to actually answering the points, that'll be even better--but I'm not holding my breath.

reply from: Tam

Bartman: I totally agree, and it's nice to see you back!

reply from: RePit

In this millenium or the next one?

Probably tnot in this millenium, as Cali has disappeared for more than a few weeks now, and I don't want to talk to myself. Anyone know what happened to him?

Cali, if you read this; I will check back here for you in another weeks time. I guess either something horrible has happened to you, or you have simply chickened out.

---------------------
Cali - 24 year old male on a mission to find a pro-choicer whose position is logically defensible, yet his own position is not logically defensible.

reply from: cali1981

Not quite "horrible," but life has been extremely crazy...
There'd be no reason to chicken out since I hold the logically defensible view in this debate. And I'll be happy to defend it all-the-live-long-day. Whenever you're ready.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics