Home - List All Discussions

Rape

by: TheVoiceOfReason

Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to many of the views on this forum, but I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing either. I'm not trying to be purposefully controversial or conflicting - I just want to hear some opinions.
I'm interested to know how a 'pro-lifer' would respond to a female member of their family, be it a daughter, niece, sister, girlfriend, wife, mother etc. being raped and impregnated.
After not allowing a women the choice of giving or not giving consent for sex ... Surely she should be allowed a choice over giving birth to a bastard child of a rapist?
I know these aren't easy issues to answer but I'd appreciate a response - preferably one based on rational argument rather than something religion based.
Thankyou for your time.

reply from: yoda

To begin with, I prefer the label "antibabykiller", so as to remove all doubt as to what my label means. Next, I would guess that my reaction would be one of great anger.
Where did you come up with the premise for this question? And what does it have to do with the morality of killing innocent unborn babies?
You're really into euphemisms, aren't you? "Allowed a choice" is your euphemism for "giving her permission to kill her baby", right? And why do you use the term "bastard"? Do you claim some moral defect exists in babies that are concieved out of wedlock? And what crime has the "bastard child" committed to deserve to be killed?
All in all, your question displays a rather cold lack of acceptance for those fellow humans who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. Most of us antibabykillers do not see rape and incest as in any way the fault of the poor baby, and in no way a justification for killing that baby.

reply from: AshMarie88

Did the baby rape the woman? No. There is no reason to punish him/her for the rapist's/father's crime.

reply from: dignitarian

The answer to your question is simple. A comprehensive philosophy of pro-life can not distinquish one human life as being more "valid" than another. We should all be thankful of this concept as this is not only the major basis for protecting the human life among us that is most innocent and helpless, but in the end it is the only basis that ultimately protects us all.(Any claims to the contrary by Sigma not withstanding.)
Regards,
Dignitarian
Reason without Faith is Vanity

reply from: Hereforareason

"After not allowing a women the choice of giving or not giving consent for sex ... Surely she should be allowed a choice over giving birth to a bastard child of a rapist? "
Who's the bastard? The one word you had in there, "child" kind of gives you the answer. It's life. It is murder to abort that child.
She very well may not be able to keep that child for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean abort it.
Rape= wrong. Murder = wrong.
2 wrongs, do not equal a right.
Amber

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok then. I apologise for the apparent equivocal nature of my post ... Wasn't intentional, its just how I wrote it down. What I was looking for was the brief statement of opinion about the "fault of the baby" - rather than a criticism of the language I used - but thankyou nonetheless. Interestingly enough, I noticed the title of this forum said something about 'pro-life' rather than 'antibabykilling' ... Dear me, isn't language so useless when it comes to big debates such as this!
Regarding your second critique, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The point I was making was that a rape is something forced upon a woman - therefore removing her choice whether to be impregnated or not. Is it then fair to also force upon her the pains of giving birth, raising an unwanted child, looking into its eyes every day and remembering the vile way in which it was conceived?
When did I mention anything about moral defects? When was it even implied? You clearly know what a "bastard child" is, (a child conceived out of wedlock) but it was you, and only you, that mentioned anything about a bastard child being morally defective.
To reiterate my point in the rather emotional terms you've coloured it with - Surely this raped and impregnated woman should be given the permission to kill the unborn baby?
Ironically, your response displays a rather cold lack of acceptance for those fellow human beings who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances.
I pray that no woman in your family is placed in this unfortunate circumstance.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

As a new poster this topic caught my attention...
Surely you would agree that the decision to have sex and begin the process to create a child is a very weighty decision never to be taken lightly and never to be entered into without serious thought of your capabilities as a possible future parent.
From this, in the instance of rape and impreganation this choice has been wrested from the female in question and thus there is the chance that they would be ill prepared for such a birth, or possibly were never going to engage in sexual intercourse as they simply did not want a child. A decision that many people make.
As the initial choice, of making a child, has been taken from the female in question then surely if the female did not want to have a child, at any stage in her life, not simply from, cries of its too early in their life or they do not want the child of the rapist, the possibility of abortion should be conceded.
in relation to my argument, to deny her the choice of having a child or not, would be very much anti any form of choice. which i do not believe is a viable postition to hold.
Please forgive my lack of any grammatical skill.

reply from: cali1981

Saying that a mother should not be able to kill her child does NOT in ANY WAY show a lack of acceptance or appreciation for the horrible thing that happened to her. If anything, suggesting abortion shows that, given what a monumental experience it is to be raped and conceive a child. It is absolutely CRUEL to suggest that those are such trivial experiences that their memory can be eradicated simply by killing the child. Whether the child lives or dies, the mother will carry the memory of the child and of the experience for the rest of her life. Abortion solves nothing.
And when you say that it is not fair to "force upon the woman the pains of birth and raising an unwanted child"....there are so many things wrong with that statement. First of all, unplanned does NOT equal unwanted. The fact that a woman was not expecting to conceive a child does NOT necessarily imply that she wouldn't want the child once finding out about him/her...no matter how vile the circumstances of the child's conception. Second of all, giving birth to the child does not necessarily imply the obligation to raise him/her. Third of all, abortion is not painless. And fourth of all (and most importantly), no pro-lifer or government in the world can "force" a woman to give birth. If she is pregnant, that will happen naturally. Abortion halts that natural process. The only one responsible for the birth is the one who bears the fault for the conception - the RAPIST.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Thankyou dignitarian. A well reasoned argument... I like the Reason without faith is Vanity thing too... Meow
I also like hereforareason's "2 wrongs don't make a right" thingy.
Trouble is, the world is a place of grey scales and there's no definitive rights and wrongs.
I think our fundamentals are all at odds so its impossible to reach any compromise ... I personally can't empathise with a feotus as much as I can a living human.
I also personally believe that in terms of pragmatism and social utility - killing an unwanted baby when necesary, is the right thing to do.
And before anyone else starts criticising the language I use - Don't bother .... What you're trying to do there is discredit my opinion - rather than change it. Plus it'll leave us off at a tangent in which I will only criticise your use of language. Perhaps try asking me to rephrase it, or ask what I mean by rather than slate it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, rape is forced upon the woman, but then DEATH/mutilation is forced upon the second victim who did nothing!
Abortion won't undue the rape. And, the woman will always remember the rape, whether she aborts or not.

reply from: cali1981

Thoughtcrime, Welcome to the forum.
Yes. But this does not mean that a child conceived without such foresight is less valuable or worthy of life than one conceived with it.
So what you're saying is, because the woman was not prepared for the conception of the child and might not want him/her, he/she has no value and may be killed. What you're saying is that people's value depends on whether or not they are "wanted" by a particular person. Right?
There are a couple of things wrong with this statement. First of all, pro-lifers have never suggested that women be required to have children. When a woman is pregnant, SHE HAS A CHILD. The pro-life position is that she should not be able to KILL that child. As far as being "against choice," do you believe that all choices are equally good? That any person should be able to "choose" to do anything they wish, including harm another? That certainly isn't a position that is supported by law or our conception of individual rights. There are plenty of "choices" that society does not allow the individual to make.

reply from: AshMarie88

No, it's never the right thing to do! Putting a child, a CHILD, to death for convenience isn't "right" or "necessary".
The term "wantedness" or "unwantedness" doesn't determine how human someone is or not, or how valuable or worthy of life they are. If a woman doesn't want her child... well fine, but there are other people that would want that child, so in the sense it's not "unwanted". Even if a child was truely unwanted, why is that a reason to just kill them? Why should KILLING/MUTILATING be a choice? What if that child would grow up and want to live?
Think about it...

reply from: cali1981

The problem with this is that a fetus IS a living human. The only difference between a fetus and a toddler or a fetus and an adult is his/her level of development. You are right...there can be no compromise. Either it's okay for one person to kill another, or it's not. Exceptions turn into quite the slippery slope.
The problem with this is that no baby is unwanted. Any pro-lifer, if told that a child existed in a mother's womb and was going to be killed, would either take care of that child or find someone else who would. Every child that is butchered because his/her MOTHER does not want him/her is wanted by SOMEONE.
People's value is not determined by who "wants" them. Everyone is equal.
Language is important, because when used incorrectly it can mask a very dishonest argument - as it does when you imply that a fetus is not a living human. Criticize pro-lifers' language if you like, but for the most part, they use the correct terms for things. This is an important thing to establish.

reply from: Alexandra

You know, I take offense to labeling children as "bastards," considering I was born out of wedlock and my mother never married my natural father. (And no it wasn't through rape but that's beside the point.)
I don't think there are illegitimate children, only illegitimate PARENTS. My definition of illegitimate parent is a parent who refuses to care for their child (adoption doesn't count there because at least the child's parent[s] are making sure the child is actually cared for). In my case, my natural father is illegitimate. My mother had to take him to court for paternity. He eventually signed away his rights (not that he wanted them) so my stepfather could adopt me.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

I apologise if this is ridiculously callous but...
Would you consider a tumor life? on a biological level a foetus (in its early stages) is basically the same, a collection of cells. and in some people, a collection of unwanted cells.
and also in response to the remembering the rape for the rest of her life. to counter that surely giving the female a living reminder of the man who raped her is cruel and if she wasnt strong enough to overcome that it could have negative effects on the child. how would you feel being raised by a woman who thought only of a negative experience when she looked at you?

reply from: Alexandra

It's not human life.
Plants are alive, and animals are alive, but humans are superior to plants and animals.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

So after the ordeal of rape ... Then forcing a woman to give birth against her will does NOT in ANY WAY show a lack of acceptance or appreciation for the horrible thing that happened to her? Errrr.... Ok then.
You seem to think that I believe an abortion will also remove the rape and its memory ... When did I state this? I was simply stating that after being not given the choice of being impregnated, surely it is immoral, a kick 'em while their down, to then deny a woman the option of terminating the pregnancy.
You make a point about unplanned not equalling unwanted ..... Surely if the baby is wanted the mother won't go for an abortion, so that's irrelevent.
Your, 'second of all' point seems like a good one though ... Basically, after a woman has been denied the opportunity of terminating an unwanted pregnancy, she then has the option to abandon it and is not obliged to care from it? Fair enough ... Just would've thought it'd be easier to do it in a relevetively painless and surgical manner while its still undeveloped rather than let it die of starvation / exposure. Then again, you are in disagreement with the 'unnatural process' of abortion ... Starvation and exposure are arguably more natural.
Your next point's even better though. "no pro-lifer or government in the world can 'force' a woman to give birth". Well thank God for that! Think I've found a pro-life to pro-choice convert here. At last one of you realises how fruitless your protests are!

reply from: Alexandra

Guess what--Once conception occurs, she IS a mother. The question is, will the baby be sucked out and torn to pieces, or will the baby emerge alive in nine months or so?
That child EXISTS, whether the child is aborted or born.

reply from: AshMarie88

1. For the billionth time, NO ONE IS FORCING A WOMAN TO BIRTH!
2. Why are you saying we lack compassion for those women? Why do we lack compassion for them just beacuse we don't want to see someone being killed for a crime they didn't commit?
3. Why should the woman have the right to kill her child?
4. There are many others, besides the mom herself, that would want the child. What about the fathers, that want their child, but the woman aborts anyway? Surely the child is still wanted.
5. Relatively painless and surgical procedure? Hold on. Painless? It's not painless. Second, it's not in anyway a "surgery", because it kills on purpose. And over 90 percent of the time, it is developed and already has a beating heart, and can feel pain!
You think it's wrong to "force" a woman to give birth, but it's right if a woman can force death upon her baby? Which is worse, life or death?!

reply from: Thoughtcrime

I am of the opinion that choice, good or bad is what makes us human beings. People can make bad choices and invariably do but to make that decision for them is appalling. People become nothing more than puppets dancing to the tune of another instead of their own decisions.
I would say that the life of a collection of cells (as I imagine the decision to abort would take place within that space of time) is less valuable than the life of a person already shaped, made aware.
In calculating sum damage caused (again callous) the death of a foetus (not consciously thinking) would be less than the damage to the females life and the child's due to the emotional ramifications of bearing a child of one who raped you.
In this instance it's not a case of being required or not to have a child, in this case study/scenario to not present the woman with the yes no choice of abortion you would removing any choice she had of being a mother. This should be a choice that you are never forced into. Good or bad choices are what make us individuals.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

Bastard is a technical term refering to a child born out of wedlock. it is only made a swearword by those who have an aversion or think it morally wrong for children to be born out of wedlock

reply from: Thoughtcrime

a foetus is at the same level of plants and animals as our only distinguishing feature is higher thought. foetus's cannot engage in higher thought

reply from: Alexandra

Talk about ignorance. What are you composed of? What am I composed of? CELLS, that's what!
It just so happens that an unborn CHILD has fewer cells than an adult!
A zygote, for example, isn't a blueprint for a human, it already IS a human being, but in the earliest stage of development. Just like an acorn is an oak tree...very early on.
All that zygote has to do is grow and develop, that's it. And by the third month of pregnancy, all the organs have developed, all that's left is for the child to grow so he or she doesn't have to be physically attached to his or her mother.

reply from: Alexandra

I think that children should be born in wedlock if at all possible (I'm a fundamentalist Christian) but it just sounds like the CHILD is being blamed.
I don't think single mothers should set out to be mothers. Rape is the exception--it's not her fault, and she can keep the child or adopt out.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

'1. For the billionth time, NO ONE IS FORCING A WOMAN TO BIRTH!'
Then what is it if she cannot choose not to concieve and cannot choose to abort?

reply from: AshMarie88

Good or bad is what makes us humans, and killing someone is okay? And of course making a decision for someone else is appaling, especially when you're making the choice of DEATH for someone.
You imagine that's when abortions take place? Think again. Most abortions (and when I say most, I mean wavy ofer 95%) take place after there's a heartbeat and a brain, and formation. We're all clumps of cells, tho.
What is that supposed to mean? Abortion would be less damaging? Actually, most women who abort after a rape regret it. And of course, how would abortion not be damaging, especially to the one being directly affected (killed) by it?
Removing the choice of abortion, if possible, would be be removing a chance she had of being a mother, because she IS a mother, and when she aborts, she's the mother of a dead baby.
There are good choices and bad choices... Some of the bad are rape, murder, and abortion. Some of the good are life and helping people. There are consequences and punishments for the bad choices, including abortion.

reply from: Alexandra

Pfft. I can say the same thing for most of our country's population!
My four-year-old son can't philosophize. Is he less human than I?

reply from: AshMarie88

Did you know they had developing brains by 3 weeks? And did you also know that by 4 1/2 months, they're aware of their surroundings in the womb? They also, smell, see, taste, and feel.
They're also sensitive to touch by 13 weeks.

reply from: AshMarie88

Rape or lack of self control is when she can't choose to conceive.
What is it when she cannot choose to abort? Taking responsibility for her actions (most of the time). Abortion is the easy way out.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i am a fully concious collection of cells. a foetus is not

reply from: AshMarie88

At 4 1/2 months it is.
By the way, what does conciousness have to do with anything? A sleeping person isn't concious/sentient. Is it okay to kill them because they aren't?

reply from: cali1981

No, it is not the same. A fetus in his/her early stages has a gender, a brain, a heartbeat, and tiny organs. Everything present in you is present in a fetus, if only in the tiniest, most diminutive form of a DNA particle. A tumor has none of those things, as it is not a human being in the earliest stages of development.
If I were conceived in that way, and my mother was raising me, I think she'd be strong enough to do it - and there is nothing to suggest that she'd think ONLY of a negative experience and think of no feelings of love for me. In fact, my father did not rape my mother, but there were very bad experiences between the two of them afterward and they have been split up for a while. Since I am unavoidably like my father, I am sure that my mother still thinks of him whenever she sees me - how could she not? - and thinks of all the bad things that happened between them. That doesn't mean that she doesn't love me. And if she wasn't strong enough to love me despite my father's being an idiot, then she could have let someone else take care of me.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

forgive me i didnt make myself clear. making a decision for someone else when they are a fully concious human being and are aware of all the ramifications/consequences. i do not believe a foetus could make a decision even if given the opportunity.
Does the foetus have higher thought/functions and consciousness of its self? i believe not. i think that if you kill animals then it is only our own arrogance that our progeny should be more advanced that makes the life more worthwhile.
Hindsight is not always accurate. Some women regret their decision not to abort.
that is just an argument based on language. Mother was used as a term to describe female who gave birth. it does not change meaning when you use it. of course she would be a mother of a dead foetus. but in the instance of rape her first decision, to concieve and therefore become a mother would be removed. thus every choice on the route to mother hood would be removed and it would become forced. forced to concieve and forced to birth. is forcing her to birth any better than forcing her to concieve?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

Of course they are! you dont die or revert to a vegetive state when you sleep

reply from: Thoughtcrime

did i say i was adverse to killing the majority of the population?
but in all seriousness, your 4yr old is still entirely concious, he is self aware. in fact most children are entirely egocentric so i imagine he is very very self aware
amount of knowledge is nothing to do with conciousness or self awareness.
i have no doubt of your childs capacity to learn.
now whilst a foetus has the potential to become something that has conciousness and higher thought i have no qualms about terminating it (if the reasoning is just) before it becomes so.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i'm still not convinced, you see an animal can do all these things and they are killed on a regular basis whether it be population control or dinner.
The distinction im trying to make althought language seems inept for it, is the same distinction between animals and a fully functioning/conscious (not in the 'passed out or awake' sense) human being

reply from: AshMarie88

The day abortion stops completely will be the day I'm against killing animals for dinner.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Some more good points but I'm still not convinced.
Got a lot to respond to here but I'll save my energies and instead shall provide a summary of my views for you to try on for size - criticism welcomed.
The strongest viewpoint offered by pro-lifers appears to be along the lines of: A feotus is a living entity, a defenseless one at that, therefore taking away its life is an immoral act.
Now allow me open a new avenue of debate ... If a raving psycho had you pinned down and was strangling you to death for no apparent reason ... If you reached for your knife and killed him in order to protect your own life would this be immoral in the same way as taking the life of a feotus? I'm not saying that innocent feotus' are the same as psychotic murders - tis a point of principal and it shows that morality is a large greyscale, there are many instances were people may be perfectly justified in commiting an apparently immoral act.
I assume nobody here has ever had to murder anybody out of practicality and I don't expect anyone to own up either ... However, allow me to extend this principal in another way.
The 'living' entity of a feotus is a collection of 'living' cells.
As is a tree, a carrot, or a cow. We kill all of these things to suit our own practical gains - without doing so, we wouldn't have homes or food.
I assume most people here, antibabykillers and probabykillers alike, live in houses and eat food ... Even if killing these 'living' entities was an immoral act in the first place, we go through with it our of pragmatism.
If you can't understand the point i'm trying to make here, ignore it and simply refer back to cali1981's statement:
Too right mate! Nobody can ultimately interfere with someone's freedom of choice to that extent.
One thing pro-lifers could do however, is set up camp outside abortion clinics protesting with banners 'n' all, in an attempt to have these clinics closed down. Oh no, you already are. Great.
Well that's Ok, in light of the fact "no pro-lifer in the world can 'force' a woman to give birth". She could just 'fall down the stairs' or get a back-alley-coathanger-job. Oh yes, because before we had abortion clinics, any women exercising her freedom of choice could do it herself in such a manner ... Only problem's being the extra pain and hassle. No biggy though really I guess.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

but again animals have those things to and i doubt many of you defend all of them.
of course some women would be strong enough to deal with it but i doubt those women would be the ones to CHOOSE an abortion. thus abortion is there as the option for those that could not.
and i do think idiot is a bit of a weak word for a rapist.
that is a fair point the woman could put the baby up for adoption but the woman then has 9 months of punishment and probably increases the amount of pain/suffering she would be going through. Also adoption is often a failing service for many children that go through their hands.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

I thought this discussion was about abortion in the instance of rape, not because pregnancy would coincide with the bikini season

reply from: Thoughtcrime

so until then you dont need consistency in your principles?

reply from: AshMarie88

"that is a fair point the woman could put the baby up for adoption but the woman then has 9 months of punishment and probably increases the amount of pain/suffering she would be going through."
Pregnancy isn't a "punishment", it's a result. And 9 months is a very short time to give someone a LIFETIME of life!

reply from: MaleNurse

Just so we keep this in proper context:
The "Hard" Cases;
cases of rape or incest
Represent only 1% of all cases
I don't see the value in making a decision based on the exception rather than the rule. The "rule" being that 97% of abortions are performed for cases of "conveinience".
My heart goes out to the rape victim. As Ash says, an abortion won't undo the rape and the baby is innocent. Killing the baby won't make her feel any better. Putting the rapist behind bars for a dozen years WILL help though.

reply from: AshMarie88

"The 'living' entity of a feotus is a collection of 'living' cells."
Yes it is, in the VERY beginning of pregnancy, when most abortions do not take place. At 3 weeks there's a heartbeat and developing brain and developing organs. How is that just "developing cells"?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

im afraid if you were raped, the pain of carrying around a baby not only the physical, which could be ignored if you were confident in your joy of motherhood, but the emotional and metal would be huge. A pregnancy after rape would most probably feel like a punishment. and for what, not being strong enough to fight off the rapist. a poor act of sympathy.
a lifetime of life eh? a lifetime of what, in several communities both mother and child would be shunned due to the attaint of rape. even if the true story of rape were not told to save the child and mother from that i imagine they would suffer as a single parent family. people are simply not accepting enough to help people in these situations, people individually are nice, the crowd is a beast.

reply from: Alexandra

I used to think abortion was acceptable in cases of rape, but then the thought hit me, hey, is a child conceived in rape any less deserving of life than a child conceived in an act of love between husband and wife?
Since then, I've been against abortion in cases of rape. And women who conceived due to rape really don't appreciate being used by the pro-abortion crowd to further the pro-abortion agenda. Nearly all women who were raped and subsequently aborted REGRET the abortion.
Just another example of dishonesty amongst the probabykillers.

reply from: AshMarie88

Not all women are the same. Not all women experience more pain after a rape when pregnant.
Someone I know, was raped and became pregnant, but then she miscarried. Pregnancy helped her cope with the pain of the rape. So what does that tell you?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

A great deal of rapes are never reported. many people do not have the courage to.
And we are discussing the instance of rape, that is the title of this thread. i may argue something completely different in a non rape discussion.
it is amazing how adaptable the human mind is, many people shut out horrific instances or pretend they have not happened, i dont recommend this as the way to deal with things but not everyone is strong enough to face their past everyday of their lives. would you punish those people?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

EXACTLY not all women are the same, so how can you advocate that one rule such as no abortions should apply for all?
That tells me that
that is an individual case, a point i have been trying to make, thankyou for understanding. there can be no one rule, it doesnt practically work

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Right then AshMarie88.
Did you ignore the rest of my post to criticise my use of language and criticise very poorly at that ? I think that may be the case.
First off ... Did I never mentioned anything about "just developing cells"? Answer: No. You did. I in fact said they were 'living' ... I conciously put that to apease you people.
Secondly ... The query YOU (not me) wrote; "How is that just 'developing cells'?" You answered yourself; "At 3 weeks there's a heartbeat and developing brain and developing organs."
Dear oh dear.
Please have a think and try again.

reply from: AshMarie88

Thoguhtcrime, even if a woman didn't want the baby, why should she have the option to kill it? It only makes another dead human who DID NOT HURT HER, and is being punished for the crime of the person who DID hurt her.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, when the preborn rape women, and when they really become nothing but less than human, that's when I'll become pro-abortion.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

that is a hideous generalisation.
most women do not report rape. some women regret not aborting.
ALL INSTANCES AND ALL WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT
how can you advocate a single rule?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

AshMarie ...
Do you eat food / live in a house?
Oh, and do you deny that there is public demand for abortion?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i still do not acknowledge that a foetus matters more than the woman in the situation.
the situation being discussed is a woman, raped, who wants an abortion. if she did not want an abortion there would be no need for the discussion its the matter of choice being debated.
one of the definitions of rape is to forcibly enter without consent, therefore the baby would be raping the mother. but without intent so morally i can forgive that one.

reply from: AshMarie88

Uh of course I eat food and live in a house. What does that have to do with abortion?
Heck, there IS a public demand for abortion. People are so death-hungry, it doesn't surprise me. That sounds crazy but it's true. Many women want abortions, and they keep having them. Talk about demanding...

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, no definition of rape is to forcibly enter without consent.
And, no, the baby wouldn't be raping the mother. The egg was already in the mother, waiting to be conceived, then waiting to travel thru the tubes and into the uterus.

reply from: yoda

I WAS speaking for myself, and I do not own nor opertate this forum. Do you have a problem with that?
The point I was making was that a rape is something forced upon a woman - therefore removing her choice whether to be impregnated or not. Is it then fair to also force upon her the pains of giving birth, raising an unwanted child, looking into its eyes every day and remembering the vile way in which it was conceived?
There is nothing fair about rape, is there? But your concern for the inconvenience and mental anguish caused by the existence of the child (which is half hers, btw) pales when compared to the actual life of the child him/herself. No mitigating factor can ever justify the intentional killing of an innocent baby, no matter how you spin it.
What OTHER reason could you have had for injecting that profanity? How did it relate to the question of killing the baby?
There is NEVER a reason to "give permission to kill" an unborn baby. That is a horrible, horrible attitude.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Uh of course I eat food and live in a house. What does that have to do with abortion?
Then you obviously completely ignored my other post.
I'm honestly offended that you didn't take the time to read my post ... Does my opinion matter less than yours? Are you actually taking into account the opinions of others or just blindly pursuing your original dogma? I thought we were all equals on here, surely you can lend a proverbial ear to your fellow man!
On another note, putting public demand for abortion down to 'death-hungriness' is laughable. Utterly laughable!
Maybe if you'd read my post regarding the back-alley-coathanger style abortion and pondered on the fact that there will always be a demand - regardless of whether we have clinics or not - then you could come up with a more mature response.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i have nothing against what your own decision would be in such a situation.
what i do find offensive is that you would put foward a single view in a desperate hope that it would fit all that come.
what i also find offensive bout pro-life protesters(although i acknowledge that you may not be among these people) is when Girl X, arrives at the abortion clinic, after being raped, feeling dirty, emotionally insecure and damaged she is yelled at, called a muderer, a whore. this is incomprehensible cruelty, condeming the life of this girl for the life of something that may or may not come to term, may or may not be a good person.

reply from: AshMarie88

Uh of course I eat food and live in a house. What does that have to do with abortion?
Then you obviously completely ignored my other post.
I'm honestly offended that you didn't take the time to read my post ... Does my opinion matter less than yours? Are you actually taking into account the opinions of others or just blindly pursuing your original dogma? I thought we were all equals on here, surely you can lend a proverbial ear to your fellow man!
On another note, putting public demand for abortion down to 'death-hungriness' is laughable. Utterly laughable!
Maybe if you'd read my post regarding the back-alley-coathanger style abortion and pondered on the fact that there will always be a demand - regardless of whether we have clinics or not - then you could come up with a more mature response.
There will always be a demand for rape and murder too (the ones commiting those acts). Does that mean we should make those legal?
Just because there's a demand for them, doesn't make them right.

reply from: yoda

It is much too late to make that choice, because when a woman is pregnant she already HAS a child. The only question left is whether she will kill it or allow it to live.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

in case you were unable to identify that it was something people call a play on words.
Another thing, words are flexible non rigid things and yes that is one of the definitions. Rape is a word used in many contexts, for example ... so and so country economically raped blah blah country when they conquered them in the year dumdedum.
p.s. chill out

reply from: yoda

I'd like to highlight your statement, because there's really nothing I can add to it:

reply from: Thoughtcrime

again a mistake in word choice in the flow of argument. please if you understand the jist dont be such a pedant

reply from: yoda

The callousness of that question is it's least objectionable characteristic. It is basically nonsense.
No tumor is anything more than a part of a living creature, it never constitutes a living creature by itself. If you can't concieve of the basic difference between a small part of a whole, and a whole, there's no use in debating this.
As far as you totally unscientific term "collection of cells", there is no reason why that would not equally apply to you.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I never said that rape and murder were right and should be legalised due to their demand.
These crimes however can be policed with reletive ease compared to a mother commiting a manual abortion.
I think you're still missing the point.
I've been patient with you but it hasn't worked.
Just keep re-reading over it, maybe you'll get it eventually.

reply from: yoda

So you think that killing a human being in a "relatively painless and surgical manner while it's still undeveloped" makes the killing okay?
Then you must be fine with infanticide, right? Are you campaigning to give permission to kill all newborns that are "unwanted"? Is that your goal?

reply from: yoda

Then you must be fine with women like Andrea Yates making her own decisions about "motherhood", right? Or do you think she should have stopped at the drowning of 4 sons?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i rarely see rapists and murderers advertsing for employment.
there will always be unsavoury aspects to life and im afraid many of them have to be comprimised upon, for example rape is often forcing sex upon a person, an instance in england where the age of consent is 16, a 16yr old had sex with his 15 yr old girlfriend (yes i know they are children but its for the sake of making a point) parents find out, go mental, boy although the sex was consensual is labelled and prosecuted as a rapist by the girls parents. thus a grey area.
murder, often a horrific event but the death penalty is still in existence in many places and killing in self defence is often legitimised.
thus, in some situations the situation is misread, and in some situations what is morally repugnant is legitimised in exceptional circumstances.
the crux of the issue should not be can the choice be made but in defining the circumstances

reply from: yoda

What did the use of that "swear" term add to the hypothetical situation? Why did you throw it in if not to demean the unborn child?

reply from: yoda

I treat plants and animals better than you treat unborn human babies, apparently.
Maybe you do too?

reply from: yoda

It is nature. The baby WILL be born eventually, one way or the other. Nature will force him/her to exit the uterus. Laws against killing the baby tend to discourage the mother from killing it before that happens, but they don't force her to "birth".

reply from: Thoughtcrime

Well, although you will obviously disagree, those two situations are entirely different. of course she had no right to kill these boys. but the right of the individual over their own body is sovereign. these boys were not in this womans body. whilst i disagree with harm to others i do agree with certain situations and this is why i judge each situation as they come, thus advocating CHOICE. not a flat out rule. please pay attention to the rest of my argument.
i also do not say that foetus's may be terminated without just reason.
did these boys give this woman reason, such as trampling her rose bushes or spilling milk on a brand new carpet.
i value life but im afraid your definition of life and mine are two very very different things

reply from: yoda

For a moment, let's grant your dubious claim. What moral effect do you think it has?
What moral reason gives anyone the right to kill an unconscious human being?

reply from: AshMarie88

Ah so you advocate the choice to murder. Well that cleared everything up!

reply from: yoda

HOW MUCH "opportunity"? It is well known that if you give a human fetus a few years of "opportunity" to grow and develop, it WILL be able to make decisions for itself on a basic level........ such as "I don't like pain", and "I don't want you to kill me", things like that. Even NEWBORN babies can't do that!
Are you advocating letting them live long enough to make their own decisions? Or are you excusing infanticide?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

by considering such a term a swear word it is you who is demeaning the child

reply from: yoda

No one was suggesting that sleep equates to death, that's a straw man.
And if someone you knew was in a vegatative state, but you knew they would come out of it in perfect health in a few months, would you justify their murder?
What is your moral basis for that?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

well sir, if i give it that opportunity it would no longer be a foetus and therefore no longer eligible to be a foetus giving its opinion would it?

reply from: Thoughtcrime

a non sentient being would be dead, thus refering to dead.

no one knows the future and thus that is an argument composed entirely of bull*****.

reply from: yoda

The only sense I can make of that is the question of the very few women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancy. You won't get any argument here about the need to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life, just a suggestion that it isn't necessary to always kill the baby when that is done.

reply from: yoda

Only a probabykilling advocate would call pregnancy "punishment".

reply from: yoda

That's not yours to know, nor your place to advocate death as a better substitute for that lifetime.
Advocate death for yourself if you so choose, but you have no business advocating it for others. That is barbaric.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sentient means concious.
Sleeping people aren't sentient. So they are dead?

reply from: yoda

All innocent human life IS THE SAME........ it is NOT the property of ANYONE other than the person living that life, and NO ONE else has the moral right to take it away.
Electively killing defenseless babies cannot be justified.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

Right, i do hope you all read this because im getting a bit bored or reiterating my opinions to each new person who joins the debate, and also as a gmt dweller its getting near the time for me to contemplate leaving this cyber world.
My views in sum, you are of course free to disagree
i refuse to value the life of a foetus above that of the mother
i do not acknowledge a foetus as an advanced being and thus if the death of an animal is legitimised so should the death of a foetus
bastard is not a swear word rather a useful term that sums up the phrase 'child born out of wedlock'
i agree with abortion when there is just reasoning for example rape.
Using emotive language to disguise the situation will not change my opinion
I judge each situation as it comes i believe there should be no single rule and thus i am pro choice, not pro baby killing, not hungry for death just determined that the individual has right to rule over themselves and their body.
thank you for providing me with an interesting debate, i enjoyed hearing your opinions. Thankyou for your time in reading and responding to my own.
best regards
Thought crime

reply from: yoda

Do you deny that there is a public demand for murder?

reply from: yoda

And so will there always be a "demand" for murder. Is that your best argument?

reply from: yoda

To whom were you addressing your insult, and about what?

reply from: AshMarie88

"i refuse to value the life of a foetus above that of the mother"
You don't have to value it more, but you certainly don't value it at all. What about a newborn? Is a newborn less important than the mother?
"i do not acknowledge a foetus as an advanced being and thus if the death of an animal is legitimised so should the death of a foetus"
A "foetus" (which, in American, is fetus) is more important than an animal.
"i agree with abortion when there is just reasoning for example rape."
Do you agree with abortion as a form of birth control (a woman keeps having them after getting pregnant)?
"I judge each situation as it comes i believe there should be no single rule and thus i am pro choice, not pro baby killing, not hungry for death just determined that the individual has right to rule over themselves and their body. "
I believe in the individual right over their own body too, but not at the expense of someone else's LIFE.

reply from: yoda

So LOCATION alone determines whether your innocent life deserves to be spared? Even IF you had nothing to do with your being located there, and CANNOT change that fact? That's awfully pedant of you!
Surely you can't be serious?
Really? Are you one of those folks who pulls your own personal hand-written dictionary out of their behinds? Well, just try a REAL dictionary sometime, you might like it:
life Biology. the fact of being alive; the condition that distingushes organisms such as humans, animals, and plants from inorganic matter and from dead organisms. Organisms that have life generally share powers and functions such as the following: a specific and identifiable structure or organization; the ability to move from one location to another or to carry on internal movement; the capacity for metabolism, reproduction, and growth; the ability to detect the conditions of the surrounding environment and respond to them; and the ability to adapt to long-term changes in this environment. (Harcourt)

reply from: Thoughtcrime

it is also barbaric to force a woman to bear a child

reply from: yoda

GET REAL! You had NO OTHER reason to comment on the legal status of the baby's parents, did you???????

reply from: Thoughtcrime

you are refering to conscious in a purely literal sense, in one or more of my posts i have tried to make the distinction between awake and my use of the word conscious

reply from: yoda

And that would be a TRAGEDY to you, wouldn't it? You'd be positively traumatized for an unwanted, unborn baby to escape death, wouldn't you?
You'd probably want to kill it anyway, right?

reply from: yoda

What kind of idiocy is that? Human beings ARE sentient beings, just as antelopes are creatures with horns, even though they don't have them AT BIRTH!
Or are you now making one of those idiotic claims that all unborn humans are "not alive", a.k.a. "dead"?????

reply from: Thoughtcrime

please pay attention to my other posts as im getting tired of repeating myself
of course im joking you dolt
language is infinitely flexible and you seem to be twisting words to your own design my friend

reply from: AshMarie88

"If abortion is merely about women's rights, then what were mine? There wasn't those particular kind of feminist squawking about my rights, in fact, those types of feminists prefer I'd die" - Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

oh of course, if i had it my way everybody under the age of 21 would be murdered at once.
please stop making charicatures of my argument, if you cannot argue rationally then do not argue at all.

reply from: yoda

Ah, the old RETREAT INTO EUPHEMISMS!! I knew that was coming! What your sentence REALLY MEANT was that you value the mother's right to kill her baby over the life of the baby, didn't you?
Then you are in denial. Any member of the species Homo sapiens IS an "advanced being", your acknowledgement is NOT REQUIRED. Nor do we EAT human fetuses (most of us, anyway), so the need for food is not justification for abortion as it is for killing animals.
Is that because you have no emotions?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

i was commenting on someone elses protest against the use in the intitial post of this topic.
i imagine the word bastard was used to avoid any religious protestations as to bear a child out of wedlock is sinful is it not?
please read the whole thread before taking aspects of the argument and twisting them. i was defining a term.

reply from: yoda

Hey, here's a shocker, I agree with you? RAPE is the ONLY case in which a woman is ever forced to bear a child, and I think rape is barbaric.
After she is pregnant, a woman already is bearing a child, and cannot be forced to do that which she is already doing.

reply from: yoda

Ah, you wish to play with words, as a way to justify killing unborn babies?
Forget that. We'll go by the dictionary, because YOU can't change it to suit your babykilling agenda.

reply from: Thoughtcrime

So you are a vegetarian? and you dont own any leather shoes? if you are consistent in this then i can do nothing more than admire your commitment to your viewpoint. congratulations.

reply from: yoda

Every probabykilling advocate that I've ever quoted the dictionary to makes that complaint.
To you, quoting the dictionary precisely is tantamount to "twisting words", isn't it?

reply from: AshMarie88

Hey, here's a shocker, I agree with you? RAPE is the ONLY case in which a woman is ever forced to bear a child, and I think rape is barbaric.
After she is pregnant, a woman already is bearing a child, and cannot be forced to do that which she is already doing.
You hit it right on the spot! That's so true!

reply from: yoda

I only accept demands from the moderator here, and even then I give him trouble sometimes.
What do you think your chances are of getting your demands?

reply from: yoda

No one but you has brought that up. What does that tell you?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I know as you 'pro-lifer', 'antibabykiller' whatevers dedicate so much of your time to this debate you aren't going to have your opinions changed easily.
I started this thread to see if I myself could be convinced that abortion is wrong under any circumstance as I thought you would be the right people to do it. Thankfully, none of you fell back on the predictable theistic rhetorts of God or the bible. For this I am proud of you. However, instead of citing infallible religous principles, you state principals of pure hypocrasy.
I'll ask one last time ....
Does everybody here eat and does everybody here live in a house?

reply from: AshMarie88

I guess thoughtcrime is okay with murder and rape. Because they are personal choices/decisions. And of course, right or wrong, they are humans and what they do make them human, right?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Right then. You're a hypocrit, your opinion is null. Please stop taking part in this debate.
Anyone else?

reply from: AshMarie88

And I am a hypocrite why? Again, what does living in a house and eating have to do with abortion?

reply from: yoda

I do both. What is your point?

reply from: yoda

Apparently so. Sad, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

You know, your habit of not divulging to whom your insults are directed is very confusing.
How are we to know which "hypocrit" you are talking to?

reply from: cali1981

Too right mate! Nobody can ultimately interfere with someone's freedom of choice to that extent.
No, no, no. That is not the point I was making. What I am trying to say is that it is inaccurate to state that pro-lifers or (more importantly) LAWS AGAINST ABORTION do not "force" a woman to give birth. That happens NATURALLY. If she is pregnant, SHE WILL GIVE BIRTH. Abortion interferes with that natural process.
The government CAN interfere with freedom of choice and in fact does so all the time with laws. Every law in the world interferes with a particular choice. What is wrong about your statement is that the pro-life viewpoint, and laws in that spirit, merely preserve a totally natural process, and absolutely do not "force" anything to happen.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Its not an insult. Its a fact.
As ThoughtCrime said, we shouldn't have to keep reiterating our points but for the sake of the slow amongst you - I will.
The basis of your argument always seem to fall back on this:
A feotus is alive.
Killing living things is immoral.
Therefore: Abortion, the killing of a living thing, is immoral and we should close abortion clinics.
Right?
Humans are only here today because we kill other things to survive.
To claim it's perfectly moral to kill an animal to feed oneself or to cut down a tree to house oneself is completely hypocritical.
Did you really need me to explain that to you? Were you never brought up to use your imagination? Or were you simply told to obey a fixed set of beliefs, never deviate or consider anything else? Probably. <-- That there is more insult than fact. Live (through the deaths of others) with it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Wow, talk about intolerance.

reply from: cali1981

Prohibiting abortion has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a woman to bear a child. If a woman is pregnant, SHE WILL BEAR A CHILD. That will happen completely naturally, on its own. No one is "forcing" it to happen. Abortion INTERFERES with that totally natural process. Saying that pro-life viewpoints or laws "force" a woman to have a child is inaccurate and dishonest.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Cali my friend .... As you've previously stated, you love all this semantics *****.
Open your mind just a tad more ... and I think you'll find that we live in a state of nature, every single thing that ever was or is, is nature.
Abortion is perfectly natural, as natural as a bird building its nest or a chimp using a twig to eat termites.

reply from: cali1981

I could disagree with that, but I won't bother until you can show me its relevance to my point: that prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with "forcing" a woman to bear a child.
What prohibiting abortion would effectively is state that women must REFRAIN FROM KILLING a child that already exists.

reply from: yoda

Only the conclusion bears any resemblance to anything I've said. You get into deep trouble trying to sumarize the views of those you disagree with.
(Elective) abortion is wrong because it intentionally takes the lives of innocent human beings. Killing innocent human beings is wrong because there is no valid moral heirarchy within our species, IMO, that confers the right to kill other human beings who are innocent of all wrongdoing.
Get it that time?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

No my darling, prohibiting abortion would mean women doing it themselves with a bottle of whiskey and a coathanger.

reply from: yoda

While some beasts do kill their young, that's hardly an excuse for humans to do likewise...... unless you insist that we are morally no different than the beasts... is that your claim?

reply from: yoda

Kind of like prohibiting murder means that people do it with all kinds of imaginative instruments?
Is that your point?

reply from: AshMarie88

If abortion is natural, than a woman's body designed for carrying and birthing isn't natural.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Me, In-f u cking-tolerant ? What the f uck?
You're the people who won't tolerate other people making choices about their own lives and bodies. F ucking hypocrits.
No Cali my darling, prohibiting abortion would mean women doing it themselves with a bottle of whiskey and a coathanger
Basically, you lot are wasting your tears crying about the current state of affairs regarding abortion. - I'm not saying your views are wrong ... They're just heavily unpractical ...
If your ultimate aim is to preserve the lives of unborn children who are at risk of murder by abortion then please, give up now, save yourself time and effort - its a battle you have already lost.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Me, In-f u cking-tolerant ? What the f uck?
You're the people who won't tolerate other people making choices about their own lives and bodies. F ucking hypocrits."
Yea, it's just too bad I oppose an act that harms someone else, isn't it?
Again, do you believe in abortion as birth control (meaning, a woman having more than one each time she gets pregnant)?

reply from: yoda

That sort of profanity will not be tolerated.
And your egotistical braggadocio rolls off us like water off a duck's back. Since you're so confident, why bother to come here and insult us?

reply from: cali1981

You have absolutely no proof of that. Many women who find it difficult to obtain abortion - and it is difficult in many areas of our country - simply HAVE THE CHILD. They do not necessarily resort to doing it themselves, particularly in areas where it is not permitted by law after a certain time. I find that over and over again with the women who come to our crisis pregnancy centers. If something is illegal or even difficult to do, that is a deterrent to doing it at all.
I am not crying about the current state of affairs; I am trying to change it. And it IS changing. Thanks to the efforts of millions of pro-lifers throughout the country, more and more restrictions are being placed on abortion and more and more clinics are closing their doors.
Practicality has no impact on morality nor on rights. A mother of a two-year-old might not find it particularly practical to care for that child monetarily, but that doesn't mean that the law allows for her to kill that child. The same goes for many other things that might impose a difficulty for one person but that would preserve the other's rights. It's not always practical or easy to go after people who steal and bring them to justice, but stealing violates another's rights, so we view it as important enough to go through the hassle.
Absolutely untrue, as I stated above. Many children have been saved by individual efforts; I see it every day. And the state of affairs is only getting better.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Yes Vater, we are no different from animals. One difference maybe is that we live in an arrogant pretense that we're above the rest of nature.
No Vater, my point was not about imaginative ways to murder people. Was that some kind of feeble attempt to twist my words into making me some kind of immoral person? I Suppose it wouldn't matter even if it was.
You have reminded me of something important though!
Do any of you have opinions on the death penalty? Is it ever RIGHT for the state (or whoever) to kill someone?
Anyway, I reiterate. Battle already lost. If a woman doesn't want a baby - she'll get rid of it - Be it the easy way (abortion clinic) or the hard way (use your imagination). Stop wasting your time people.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Yes Vater, we are no different from animals. One difference maybe is that we live in an arrogant pretense that we're above the rest of nature."
We are different from animals. I love my cat dearly, but I know humans are above animals. A lot of humans are smarter, too.
"Anyway, I reiterate. Battle already lost. If a woman doesn't want a baby - she'll get rid of it - Be it the easy way (abortion clinic) or the hard way (use your imagination). Stop wasting your time people."
If a woman doesn't want her baby, she can "get rid of it" the SAFE way.

reply from: yoda

If the human race has no higher moral standards than the beasts, then why do we even bother with civilization? I think we have an obligation to seek to morally rise above the "survival of the fittest".
No one but you can "make you into some kind of immoral person". But if you want to claim that making the killing of innocent babies will "force" women to find other means, it seems perfectly valid to me to compare that to the legal sitution of murder.
There are several threads on that subject, there's really no need to hijack this one to discuss that. We're antibabykilling advocates, not anti-capital punishment advocates.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Yawn.
Actually Cali, manual abortion was/is a well documented affair in places where there are no means of doing it properly. If you have evidence based on individuals who didn't resort to that, fair enough, doesn't mean it doens't happen. Shame about your activism really. I suppose its quite naive of me to assume that just because pro-lifers have a weak standpoint (as far as i'm concerned) their cause will fall. Shame.
Can someone refute my standpoint about your hypocrasy please? I'm waiting.

reply from: cali1981

Nope - not my point at all. You've completely misunderstood. See my earlier response:
What I am trying to say is that it is inaccurate to state that pro-lifers or (more importantly) LAWS AGAINST ABORTION do not "force" a woman to give birth. That happens NATURALLY. If she is pregnant, SHE WILL GIVE BIRTH. Abortion interferes with that natural process.
The government CAN interfere with freedom of choice and in fact does so all the time with laws. Every law in the world interferes with a particular choice. What is wrong about your statement is that the pro-life viewpoint, and laws in that spirit, merely preserve a totally natural process, and absolutely do not "force" anything to happen.

reply from: cali1981

Is this the post about hypocrisy that you were talking about? It's a strawman.
No, VOR, the pro-life argument does NOT say that "killing living things is immoral." It says that killing HUMAN BEINGS should not be permitted by law. Pro-lifers may hold widely varying beliefs about whether it is right to kill animals or cut down trees. A particular position on those things has no necessary connection to the pro-life position.

reply from: cali1981

Cite your evidence of this, please. People who originally stated that 10,000 women a year died of illegal abortions prior to its legalization have even admitted that this was untrue, as that would mean that over 10% of the women who died of ANY cause died of an illegal abortion.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

That would be a satisfactory response. However, as you, or maybe someone else stated earlier - You can't have half measures in the law or it gets messy. Why should living things other than humans be an exception?

reply from: AshMarie88

I could ask you the same thing about the preborn.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Congratulations again AshMarie for completely missing the point again.
I'm not usually this rude but some of you really try my patience.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm not missing any points, I just asked a question.

reply from: dignitarian

Topic Initiator:
Looks like you want to do more than just "...hear some opinions."
If dialogue is what you want, then go for it. But dialogue requires at least some element of common understanding. So what can you offer beyond your personal sensibilities? You claim legalized abortion is the right thing to do. What are the foundational principles upon which you base such a claim? Let us in on them so we can have something to discuss rather than have to read your cheap pot shots at the moral commitments of others (not a hard thing to do if you don't believe in anything yourself).
Your "arguments" remind me of several other antagonistic users in this forum plus something my chickens make.
Can you bring anything of value to the table at all?
Regards,
Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

You mean your strawman?
Yawn.

reply from: yoda

He's just frustrated by his inability to make a rational argument, Marie. Take his insults as a compliment.

reply from: cali1981

It is not an "exception." Humans are the highest life forms on the planet. Societies are formed by them and for them. When we debate laws, therefore, we are concerned about the members of the society.
This debate is not about the morality of killing animals other than humans. I'd like to suggest that we stay on topic.

reply from: cali1981

Hear Hear! Yes, VOR, please do let us in on them.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok Ok!
I can't really keep it up much longer I suppose you have me on this one.
I am pretty much an agnostic / anarcho-commie, . Shoot me dead...
I do however have pragmatist political beliefs too, which as I said earlier - we probably would fundamentally disagree on. These beliefs are liberal and I personally think that the advantages of the practicalities of legalised abortion would outweigh any possible moral implications.
Sorry for any offense I may have caused while exercising what is pretty much, looking back on it, a complete act of sophistry.
EDIT: But I am also very interested in your opinions! And I'm not a complete twat, as this did serve some purpose as a means to debate the issue further, which you can't deny is a good thing.
EDIT2: And i'm sorry for losing patience with certain people ... Its just get frustrated when i'm not communicating something well enough.

reply from: cali1981

Actually, some of the pro-lifers on this forum hold similar views. I myself am an agnostic. Tam is something of an anarchist, if I remember correctly.
Please explain this further. Why would practicalities ever outweigh morality, or more importantly, rights? Would you say that any law that is difficult or costly or time-consuming to enforce ought to just be abolished? Would this be your position if you were a member of the class of human beings who could legally be killed under the law?

reply from: yoda

Great big hairy greasy deal..... I'm a "liberal" agnostic..... so what?
Well I'm afraid we'll never agree there...... I don't consider ANY such "advantages" could ever be in the same moral value category as an innocent human life.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Basically, morality is ... well it is a very open and somewhat subjective thing is it not?
I think traditional morality was put in place to try and keep the peace among men and create consenus for a society, in a practical rather than devine sense. Everyone has their own takes on this morality, as far as something like 'killing' goes, I believe we kill to survive anyway as part of nature and that is innate. I think considering the ammount of killing we do directly and indirectly to other living beings just by existing naturally, its hypocritical to make our own kind completely exempt. Get me so far?
In an ideal state, the only necesary intervention would be to keep the peace to as reasonable extent as possible, preventing people harming eachother. In an even more ideal world a state may play some part in redistributing wealth etc. but we all know how tricky this kind of thing is when applied.
Issues such as euthanasia and abortion sit in the greyest part of the traditional moral scale and there will never be a clear cut right and wrong. However, putting morals aside, it is surely far more practical to meet public demand for something they will only go and do by other means anyway. Whether legal or not people WILL, and DO do what they want. This way illegitimate, blackmarket cultures that grow as a result of these restrictive laws is surely far more dangerous than something formally controlled?
Soooo basically, morals as far as i'm concerned are that which stop the omni bellum omni, besides that I think its practical to be liberal about everything else. I know you all believe the life of an unborn child is just as precious as any other human life. I however find our heavily hypocritical traditional morals get in the way of what is practical.

reply from: ThunderKitten

No we're not. We just have a mutual personal interest in each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if you look at things in the absolute sense, all life is equal, all life has intrinsic value, all living beings deserve to live. *I* put more value in human life, *I* think it's acceptable to eat meat, plants, etc. But if I were a goat, I sure wouldn't think I was inferior to people!
Just because we as humans value each other more than any other species, does not mean we are superior to other species.

reply from: AshMarie88

No we're not. We just have a mutual personal interest in each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if you look at things in the absolute sense, all life is equal, all life has intrinsic value, all living beings deserve to live. *I* put more value in human life, *I* think it's acceptable to eat meat, plants, etc. But if I were a goat, I sure wouldn't think I was inferior to people!
Just because we as humans value each other more than any other species, does not mean we are superior to other species.
But then that would mean people would have to watch every step they take in the summer, to be careful they don't step on any bugs (and also, I guess, sometimes grass, and killing plants).
If I had to choose between an animal and a baby... I'd choose the baby. That's why I think animals aren't as higher in life, and why humans are more important.

reply from: ThunderKitten

I am against the death penalty. The reasons are as follows:
1. Not everyone convicted of a crime is guilty
2. Imprisonment protects the public from the offender
3. Imprisonment is adequate punishment, regardless of the crime
4. The government should be held to high moral standards
Now, in some circumstances, I think killing is ok:
1. Defense of life, defense from rape, and defense from anything as bad as or worse than rape
2. Revenge for rape and from anything as bad as or worse than rape. The victim should be allowed revenge, possibly others on the victim's behalf. Is that a moral action? No, but I sure as heck wouldn't let that stop me if *I* got raped
The reasons I exclude murder from number two is:
A. It's hard to get revenge when you're dead
B. It would lead to revenge killing for revenge killing for revenge killing for...

reply from: Alexandra

I'm pro-death penalty. Main reason being Genesis 9:6, which commands it for murder.
Another reason is--It's because human life is so valuable that if you take it upon yourself to take another's life (an innocent person's life), your life is forfeit.
I recommend the death penalty for abortionists. And I don't mean bombing clinics. The Constitution says that you can't deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process.

reply from: theamericancatholic

First off, let me say that I think rape is of the most heinous crime there is. Period.
I knew a young woman that had been raped when she was 15 years old by two males and the emotional scars are something that she will never truly recover from fully.
I also have a relative that was raped when she was young.
If the rape victim were someone very close to me, I would not recommend abortion if that were the case. While my pro-life stance is reflected by my religious values, my rationale for being pro-life is a very practical one. Unborn life is human life regardless of what you believe religiously. Abortion kills that life and would only be one more tramautic event lopped on top of another.
How can you ask for a response that is not religion based or bearing a moral component after making a remark like the following?
Is religious not rational? You might as well simply condemned the child for being born out of marriage, a religious institution. From a purely secular standpoint, one child is as another regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy.
What you would do and what I would do should seem very obvious.
For the record I was born out of wedlock 33 years ago two weeks prior to Roe v. Wade. I was not the product of a long loving relationship, but rather an encounter on an early date. I was born poor, without a father and never recieved support from my biological father. My mother always wanted me and loved me. I am her only child. I am pro-life, I am Catholic and I resent the very words "illegitmate child". No child or human being is illegitimate in the eyes of God and non should be in the eyes of the law either.
Life is a chance to overcome any obstacle or station in life.

Abortion is the conscious decision to end a life and its every possibility before it ever begins.
I know of no one who would make a suitable judge of the unborn, who could decide who will be a productive and valued member of society and who will not.

reply from: Alexandra

I was born February 27, 1973, one month AFTER Roe! So you're not much older than I.
My birth father dumped my mother.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Everyone's got their own opinion, yeah.
Hypocritical, yes, but I like it that way.
Do you think it's ok for me to kill you or you to kill someone else so that our species isn't "hypocritical"? Also, is it not wrong for me to help another living being survive because that would be "hypocritical"? After all, to help something survive would most likely involve killing something else. I shouldn't feed a dog because to do so would entail the death of a cow?
People make choices, and I think it is to people's benefit if we all choose not to kill each other. As a person, that's the policy I favor.

In *the* ideal state, *all* life would enjoy life and survive without destroying or harming any other living thing. Not very likely, though. Gotta work with what we have.
Clearcut for some, not for others, so as a society, probably not. It's pretty clear to me that abortion is wrong. And I wish those people who want to kill themselves wouldn't be so adamant that their doctors help them. It just opens up a whole new door for "physcian assited homicide". "See! Here's his (forged) signature right here, he wanted me to prescribe a lethal dose! (wink wink)"
The fact that a large number of people do something somehow makes it moral? It somehow means it should be legal? Maybe we should "formally control" rape. If you want to rape someone, you have to go to a "rape clinic" where the unwilling participants are in full supply. Hey, maybe we could combine it with abortion clinics, make it a "rape-then-abort" combo prize! Where will creativity lead us next?
What does omni bellum omni mean? I flunked insert language here.
Hypocritical morals get in the way of practicality? Were you refering to your first paragraph, or something else entirely? And either way, what do you mean by that?
Do you mean, "It's hypocritical morality to be against abortion because we're blatant killers anyway, so why not be practical and kill some of our own kind too if they inconvience us?"
I think a good answer is, "We're people, and if we want others to respect our life, we have to respect thiers." If you retort, "But unborn babies can't kill us, so what are we worried about?" then I will say, "Well, if you think that someone being unable to kill you means you can kill that person, aren't you worried someone else might think the same thing and get YOU if you become dependent and helpless?"

reply from: yoda

Morality based on "practicalilty" is worse than no morality at all.
Consider yourself a ship without a rudder.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

One can't be pro-life and pro-death at the same time. I asked that question as I know some will believe you can, which is a clear contradiction. How can murder in one instance be any more ethically sound than the next?
Thunderkitten, you give a reasoned argument but you're obviously still open to admission that morals are not absolute and that each case has to be judged individually.
Alexandra, your bible reference does nothing to persuade me of your double standards either.
Anyway, let us not dwell on the death penalty issue, we're off on enough tangents as it is.
My personal views on religion in general, is that its a pragmatic indoctrination, in order to prevent the war of all against all (omni bellum omni - could have googled it..) and to give one some direction in their life.
My use of the word 'bastard' was in its truest sense of the definition 'child born out of wedlock' - which most rape-children would be. Any implications about profanity, condemnation, illegitimacy were connoted by you, yourself as I have said before. The irony of this being that, rather than ME being the one that considers a bastard to be any of the above, it is YOU, and YOUR connotations of the original definition that make it so.
Whew. That's religion and semantics briefly touched upon ... This could honestly go on forever, but as I said, we're going off on a tangent - PM me if you really can't allow me to hold these opinions.
If you like hypocritical morality, that's your choice - but at least you're open to the fact it IS hypocritical. The acceptance, and even embrace of this hypocrasy underlines much of my own philosophy, maybe you can see things from my perspective a bit more? I just feel that to take into account how contradictory morality can be, then to tell someone there are moral absolutes and that there is no circumstance in which one can get an abortion is wrong.
After appearing to accept that our morals are hypocritical, you then struggle to find scenarios in which one is or is not hypocritical ... I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here ? Your point about legalised rape mysifies me even more to be honest. I think you could argue with more clarity if you read all of my other posts. In fact a lot of your post confuses me ....
If this makes things any clearer:
Morals are manufactured out of practicality, not divine in the least, they are there to ensure social utility, not as a means of restricting one's free will.
These morals are fairly subjective at that. This subjectivity inevitably leads to contradictions. A major one being that, although we should not kill other living beings - we can turn a blind eye to the fact we kill plants and animals alike as a necesity of survival.
Therefore, although morals are useful in preventing total anarchic chaos, they are not a divine set of laws for one to live dogmaticly by - if anything they should be constantly questioned and evaluated. I honestly can't relate to anyone that can find any prudence in trusting a pattern of beliefs they know themselves to be fallible.
In the same way that morals aid practical social utility, legal abortion would too.
Most pro-life arguments seem based on cloudily naive ideals that people won't take abortion into their own hands and that all children unwanted by their mothers will get adopted by pro-life families. In the real world, things aren't quite that pretty, people will simply take abortion elsewhere. Did people not drink during prohibition? Then assuming an unplanned/unwanted child is born due to lack of abortion clinics - Can they be assured the best quality of life? I think in many cases they can't, and in turn aren't a great aid to the immediate community or wider society. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if you could abolish abortions and make the world a better place, but it simply would not. Exercise some foresight.
As for you yodavater, well what can I say?
I actually laughed out loud when I read this:
Do you not realise how silly you sound? What exactly is your morality based upon? I'm dying to hear it! Please save yourself just a smidgeon of dignity and refrain from citing divine justification!
Further irony that may have escaped your small mind is the fact that you claim I am the ship without a rudder! Hah! I think my very dismissal of traditional dogma is a fairly empowering thing - I've got a jet-engine mate! Your blind allegiance to a flawed moral code however makes you one of the many slaves rowing someone elses ship below the deck.
Hope that cleared some things up.

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, one can (at least not pro-"death"). I'm pro-death penalty and pro-life/anti-abortion. And yes I can be. Why? They are two different things.
And how can you call yourself pro-choice when you're against a lot of choices?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Actually, one cannot be pro-life and pro-death at the same time. It is a contradiction by definition. In defense of this point see threads: 'Pro-choice is not Pro-abortion' and '"Pro-Choice" IS "Pro-Abortion" and the dictionary proves it!'. In which pro-lifers like yourself will prove my point.
I am not anti-choice in the least my darling, I know people desire these choices and will do all in their power to fulfill them. This can obviously go too far, but as the pragmatist I am, I believe sanctions should be in place to protect ones negative rights to as reasonable extent as possible. In the case of abortion, there is no practical way to police against this - if anything, attempting to do so would create far more social ills than simply allowing it. The only way I could possible extend the unexceptional right to life to an unborn child would be to employ a personal police officer for every fertile woman in society in order to make sure she does not kill it by whatever means. Would that really work? I don't think so.

reply from: Sigma

Few pro-life people wish to acknowledge the unacceptable and unenforcable nature of what they preach, and some segments of pro-lifers who would accept draconian measures in their quest to ensure the life of what the woman carries is protected.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

The saddest thing of all is that no matter how incoherent and flawed the views of anti-abortionists are - I don't think I've changed any minds in all of my arguing.
There's a morbid sort of irony concerning issues like this. Some people are so engrossed in defending the 'life' of something which is not even necesarily living - based on a set of flawed moral principles - rather than actually looking at the world around them with the confirmed living and all its problems.
Flawed though they may be, morality obviously is there for practical application in the real world, as previously stated. In my opinion, a better way to utilise them would be to educate others in and further emphasise abstinance or safe sex. No matter how much you kick and scream, people will always have the choice of killing unborn children, clinic or no clinic, no ammount of protesting will stop this.

reply from: Alexandra

I'm against the killing of the INNOCENT. And who is more innocent than an unborn child? An unborn child is innocent and undeserving of death. A murderer must pay with his life. Why? Because human life is valuable! It even states that reason in the Bible verse I quoted!
I'm pro-life when it comes to the subject of ABORTION. Now when you expand it to include everything, then I say anti-abortion, or as Yodavater more accurately puts it, antibabykilling.
So no, it's not contradictory. Not if you're specific. It only sounds contradictory if you generalize.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

It's contradictory - you can have it one way or the other.
As a pro-lifer stated earlier on this topic, half-measures don't work and compromise is not an option.
The reason we reap justice on a murdurer is for practical reasons, for the service of society and individuals within it. The reason people choose to abort their children is for practical reasons, the service of society and individuals within it. An unborn child is not yet part of our society and it is at the discretion of the mother whether it should become a member.
Not allowing people to exercise choice is ultimately detrimental to society. However, the choice is always there.
As I have said before:
If unborn baby is unwanted by mother - the option of killing it is always there.
Remove clinics - they will do it in far less safe ways.

reply from: Alexandra

Will you please take your virtual fingers out of your virtual ears and LISTEN!?
As if the clinics already do it in "safe" ways. Abortion is NOT safe--period.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

What am I supposed to be listening to pray tell?
You stated an untruth, I am pointing out to you why it is untrue.
Could you please put down your virtual tennis racket and stop playing me the same shots over and over again?
As for safety of abortion clinics.
Did I ever say they were safe? No.
However, it is undeniable that they are safer than a blackmarket coathanger job.
Funnily enough though, it is actually statistically safer for the mother to carry out an early controlled abortion than it is to actually give birth to a child. Did you know that? Probably not the kind of statistic a reliable medical journal such as the bible would include eh?

reply from: yoda

And you have yet to show any reason why you included that "bit of information" in your hypothetical, other than to demean the child so concieved. What possible moral difference could it have made? Your lack of an explanation speaks for itself.
Perhaps yours are, but that has nothing to do with mine or anyone else's.
That strikes me as a rather thinly veiled attempt to rationalize a justification for ignoring even your own morals, never mind those of society in general. Why bother, we've already gotten the idea that you have no moral standards.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. No "prolifer" ever makes such idiotic arguments, you're the first probabykilling advocate that has even suggested such idiocy.
Are you sure you can stop laughing long enough to read it? Really, we appreciate your earnest efforts to treat this subject with the seriousness it deserves, as if you were discussing the best way to wax your car. I'm sure the idea of killing babies strikes you as very funny, doesn't it? Do you tell a lot of dead baby jokes?
As I told another poster, my morality is based upon the idea of egalatarianism. Look that word up, and chew on it for a while with your "small mind".

reply from: yoda

As usual, your posts start and end with a load of BS.
"Prolife" ONLY means "opposed to legal abortion", it has NOTHING to do with any other social issue.

reply from: yoda

Certainly no one here expected that to happen. You came here with a cavalier attitude towards innocent human life, and you will leave the same way.
You never tire of your lies, do you? You never tire of trying to demean unborn humans, do you? And as always, your probabykilling lies are UNdocumented dogma, nothing else.
People will always have the choice of killing their neighbors, too, does that make it right? You still have a choice, even if it's illegal....... did you know that?
I find your choice of screen name ironic......... there has been no reason from the "voice of reason".

reply from: yoda

Same is true of murderers.... should we build safe houses for them to do their deeds in, where they'll be safe while they murder?

reply from: Alexandra

Whose rear end did you pull THAT one out of?
A woman's body was designed to carry a child and give birth, not to have the child ripped out of it.
Consider that a woman who aborts is more likely to have breast cancer, have mental problems, and/or commit suicide than a woman who has never aborted and has given birth.
How safe is it to have sharp objects stuck, ahem, up there?

reply from: Sigma

You must substantiate these claims. There has been much research and the consensus of all reputable organizations is that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Mental issues has not been conclusively proven.

reply from: Alexandra

You must substantiate these claims. There has been much research and the consensus of all reputable organizations is that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Mental issues has not been conclusively proven.
Who do you consider to be a reputable organization? National Organization of Wenches? Canned Parenthood?

reply from: yoda

Why "must she' substantiate anything?
YOU never do!

reply from: Sigma

I would consider the National Cancer Institute a fairly reputable source

reply from: Alexandra

Why "must she' substantiate anything?
YOU never do!
That thought occurred to me after I submitted my post.
Yeah, Sigma, substantiate already--and cite reputable sources, please.

reply from: Alexandra

I would consider the National Cancer Institute a fairly reputable source
I mean an organization that hasn't been bought off by the probabykilling lobby.

reply from: Sigma

The burden of proof is on you, not on the challenger.

reply from: Sigma

Evidence of this, please?

reply from: yoda

Like hell it is.
She has no "burden" to prove anything to you.

reply from: Alexandra

Evidence of this, please?
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3661&department=CWA&categoryid=life
http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james3.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05051601.html--and note, two women successfully brought lawsuits against doctors who denied the link!

reply from: Sigma

2 pro-life sites and one story submission. None appear critically reviewed by the scientific community. Any nationally or internationally recognized organizations?

reply from: dignitarian

The burden of proof is on you, not on the challenger.
Did some one say BURDEN OF PROOF?
Sorry. I know I'm butting-in and I'm a little off topic here. But if the prevailing question is ultimately either to take human life or to uphold privacy, I wonder where the burden of proof really lies? This is not a trick question class.
Dig

reply from: ThunderKitten

Back to the topic of rape:
Ok, lets see if I get this straight. Pro-choicers think that being pregnant with a rapists baby is traumatic, a trauma added on to that of rape. Furthermore, they feel that continuing the pregnancy to the point of natural termination (birth) would further traumatize her, and that she should not be subjected to the pain of birth. They feel that such a women, if she chose abortion, would avoid this further injury. They also contend that the pain and trauma of unnatural termination (abortion) would be less so than that of continuing the pregnancy to term. Lastly, they feel that this difference is great enough to justify abortion. Is this an accurate summary of the pro-choice view in relation to rape?
My question is, how do you pro-choicers come to that conclusion? Personal experience? Studies you've read? How you think you'd feel? Philosophical musings? I want to know why you believe this to be true. What is your reasoning?
---------
BTW, I hate when I hear "choice in cases of rape or incest" when they mean "choice in cases of rape or rape." From what I understand, incest does not mean rape, it means sex with a closely related relative. Being raped by one's cousin (rape, or incestuos rape, if you want to be specific) is not the same as being dumb enough to **** your cousin (incest). But I suppose I'm being picky about word useage, now aren't I?

reply from: yoda

"Privacy" versus "Human Life"? Excellent way to put it, dig..... and an excellent way to separate those for life and those for death.

reply from: Sigma

Then the burden of proof lies with the proposer, or the one who wishes to change the status quo.
Generalizing in this way is a cop out, however. When a claim is made, it should generally be substantiated if that is requested, unless it is common knowledge.

reply from: yoda

Yada, yada, yada........ from the one who "proves" none of his statements........

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Here we go again then!
You actually make a good point about the word 'bastard' there Yoda and I totally know where you're coming from. You'll just have to take my word for it but I didn't choose that word with any particular agenda but just wrote what came to my head. Maybe then I chose it out of a prejudice against the unborn so maybe you're right and therefore I'm an evil person. Ah well.
-
Morals ARE/WERE manufactured out of practicality ... I'm not going to stand down on that point. Why else were they created? Does egalitarianism not have any practicality? If not, why would you believe in it?
-
Thinly veiled attempt at justification ... Me being immoral and evil ... Not caring about society (Whoa!) - More on that later. Anyway, whatever mate. I do actually have morality believe it or not and try to exercise as much altruism as possible. The difference between my moral standards and your own, is that I can empathise more with a walking-talking-living-breathing human than a pre-natal one.
-
Well lets assume that "No 'prolifer' ever makes such idiotic arguments". What happens when a mother does not want to care for or be associated with a child post-birth due to the fact she could not abort in the first place? Is it just left to die? Who looks after it if it is unwanted? I think death by exposure and starvation is worse than death by abortion.
This is irrelevant however because not even you would suggest anything so ludicrous! If you read earlier in this topic and in other threads, you'll find pro-lifers advocating the apparent idiocy of adoption. Whenever a child is described as "unwanted", you lot are quick to retort that no child is ever "unwanted" as a pro-lifing family would be happy to look after them. I'll hyperlink you to these statements if you really want?
-
As for me looking up egalitarianism? Well, this is complicated one, was tempted to tell you to look it up yourself like the cheeky sod I am, but its not that simple. I personally don't think your attitude is egalitarian - but equally you will think that of me. I think by disallowing women the choice of abortion you're making them less than equal - At the same time however, you will simply claim that I am making the pre-natal baby less than equal. This is a moot point. Equally (no pun intended), you believe I am the one being callous toward the unborn child, I believe you are being callous toward the mother and her freedom.
-
"Pro-life" / "Pro-Choice" / Pro-x / Pro-z ... I really dislike these political framings but we are confined to language unfortunately. That aside, one's stance on one thing has EVERYTHING to do with other social issues. I believe one "pro-life" philosophy is the Consistent Life Ethic? The operative word in there being 'Consistent'. However, this itself is a flawed philosophy as its exclusive to humans. It would be a more consistent philosophy if called The Consistent Human-Life ethic - More on this later. As for your lovely term 'pro-babykilling' I don't really care if that's what you want to call me. Thing is, if I want to be pedantic about language, yoda's favourite game, 'pro-x' connotes that one actively wants to do 'x', whereas I see 'babykilling' more as a resort than something to be encouraged. As for 'babykilling', that would suggest one believes in killing all babies in general - which is patently untrue. If this is an any better attempt to define my stance (which it probably isn't, at least as the fanatics are concerned) i'd say I was "Acceptant-of-idea-of-undesired-pre-born-child-killing". Happy now?
-
Regarding your comparison to murder, see my post on the practicalities of policing babykilling compared to policing murder. You and your selective reading! My My.
-
Is that reason enough for you? If not, there's more - please read on.
ThunderKitten my friend, your summary of the rape debate is fairly accurate indeed but there is more to it than that ... I do like your approach though, a far more mature debating style than me or Yoda I dare say. Also, as Yoda himself quoted in another thread "The unexamined life is not worth living" and your evaluation and balance clearly shows that. Even if you come to different conclusions than myself, at least you've made some attempt at full 'examination' so to speak.
My own reasons for coming to the conclusions I do:
- Personal experience,
I have a very sweet and usually astute friend who went out with a total arsehole. Her boyfriend was a forceful type of bloke and she's fairly impressionable and submissive. Basically, she is not a slut in any way - but she ended up getting pregnant at the age of 16 any way. Criticise her all you like, I know she was silly - but she was left with a decision; keep the baby and throw away the rest of your life (That's how I personally, and many others would see it at such a young age) or have it aborted. You call it selfish, I call it sensible.
Other personal experiences include living in the country which has the record number of teen pregnancies / births in any first world country - the results of young, unprepared women giving birth are clear to the local communities - somewhat anecdotal I know - but true nonetheless. Although I'm sure you give it no credit whatsoever, there are also studies that suggest the same thing.
- Philosophical musings, as weak as you make it sound (), do play a large part in my views. I'll pitch you a few and see how what you make of it. Be warned however, its somewhat different from ye olde Christian meta-narrative and does involve some scary statistics!
The big bang happened an estimated (within 1% accuracy) 13.7 billion years ago, our planet within this universe 4.6 billion years old, this planet is in a solar system rotating around a singular star, this star is one of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in a universe of 100,000,000,000 galaxies. Our universe is also always expanding, so these statistics are only increasing and to make things even sweeter, Einstein proposed that there are multiple universes too.
Pretty hard to fathom isn't it? Let us move on to other living beings - as this is the issue of most importance in this instance. The dinosaurs lived around 57 million years ago, have been and gone, as have many, many other species before and since - shows how ephemeral we really are. In my opinion, that makes us somewhat arrogant to assume any kind of grand divinity as a species, we will come and go like every other living organism that has been before. That should give some kind of perspective on 'life' in the grand scheme of things. Whoa there, starting to rant, i shall get more to the point.
Basically, on our planet alone (let alone all the rest of the universe) there is a huge diversity in life. From things as small as mice all the way back to us, patterns of living (or societies if you like) develop to suit the practical needs of those actively living in that society. In many species, although more notably (more obviously) among humans, one of the practicalities that develops out of a society are moralities that keep the peace. These moralities are often sandwiched within grand parables such as the bible for easy digestion for the masses, however, it is then more open to interpretation - which leads to a lot of sketchiness which I need not explain.
Humans in their irrational (given the scale of things) arrogance then begin to assume that we are above everything else in nature and that our moral codes only include us. When taking into account the grand scale of things, and that we are only as important as the next living being - our moral codes are heavily hypocritical (A point I've tried hard to stress).
Anyhow, this infinitely huge universe is constantly filled with births and deaths of living entities. When a child takes his first steps - it is in fact killing the blades of grass it walks upon, then when its family build shelter for themselves they are killing the trees they cut down - this is before even considering eating meat! It would be far too complicated and impractical to weigh up moral implications every time one was to take advantage of nature's other living things. But surely we should if we want a consistent set of morals - and actually acknowledge that we are only as significant as the next living being.
To further this point, we live in a paradigm of scientific truths (I dare someone to challenge me on this) and we utilise science to invent new technologies and medicines - things that help us further our lives (yay for pro-lifing). It is a natural thing that we, and many other living things, utilise the rest of nature to help ourselves and our lives. As I mentioned, among these scientific advances we have medicines which in essence, KILL other living things. How is bacteria trying to feed of us any different from us trying to feed off a cow or cut down a tree?
At the end of the day, an unborn child is just a cluster of living cells like many, many, many, many, many other living things (Get it yet? Not just humans) on this planet. I'm pretty sure most of you would have no qualms utilising medicinal science to kill a cancerous tumour growing in one's stomach against one's will. Therefore, why should a woman not be allowed the choice of removing a human growth from her womb if that's what she truly desires?
Does that clear things up on that front at all?
On a side note, there's a topic on this forum about lumberjacks being likened to abortionists or something along those lines - I thought perhaps it would offer similar philosophical views to my own - until I saw who it was posted by. It actually confused me a lot ... I take it is again, all about language rather than actual happenings in the real world? Please explain.
- Whether in any direct relation to my philosophical stance or not - there are also many studies I've read that convince me that legalised abortion is the right option. Oh, that's only assuming that empirical studies are at all accurate - but I'm sure if you look hard enough the bible will endorse abortion somewhere too.
Firstly, as I've said over and over again; if there are no formal abortion clinics - people WILL do it themselves. The first documented instance of people self-aborting was in 2nd century AD Greece so its no new idea. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation claims 19 million unsafe abortions are carried out each year, 68,000 of these women die due to complications, another 2-7 million survive but are heavily damaged and often die due to later complications. Needless to say, the costs of helping these poor, choiceless women post-unsafe-abortion are far greater than the cost of a controlled abortion would be. That's not even considering the costs of policing / sanctioning against self-induced abortion! Not a practical measure in the least.
Another study which I hinted at earlier is Donohue and Levitt's study of abortion and criminal statistics which basically states that there are clear correlations between legalised abortion and falling crime rates. I'll admit myself that sociological studies are open to flaws - but cross referenced with my own first hand experiences, I would give it some credit. I'll let you look this one up yourselves and you can decide.
Last, but not least, I have some public opinion statistics ... 'Why?' you ask.
Well previously in this thread I declared that the battle was already over ... How would you pro-lifers respond to knowing that you are in fact in the minority?
I'll post them up if you want.
So how's all that for undocumented dogma?
I personally think I have some pretty sound reasons whether you agree with them or not.

reply from: yoda

You can only speak for yourself about personal morals. And I can believe that you formed yours for practical reasons.
How much empathy does one need to decide that it isn't right to electively and arbitrarily kill innocent babies? Does it take a lot?
I don't consider adoption to be "a fate less preferable than death", you may say that it is for your own "practical reasons".
Have I suggested that the mother be killed, as you have for the unborn child?
That's the same lie that probabykilling advocates use to disparage the label "proabortion". Any good dictionary will tell you that "proabortion" simply means one who favors the legality of abortion, and the same is true of the slang term "probabykilling".
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
It is just as you describe it.
Where you really differ with most of us antibabykilling advocates is not in any philosophical. logical, or even practical areas.... it is in the area of having some feeling of compassion for a weak, helpless, innocent little human being....... we do, and you don't.

reply from: Sigma

Very well thought out and put together post, Voice of Reason I'm impressed.
lol, I think every intelligent person who happens upon this forum comes to the same conclusion about yodavater: childish, ill-prepared for actual debate and generally irrelevant to this discussion.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I agree, Sigma.

reply from: Tam

Yoda is my favorite!!
(Just thought I'd add two cents from MY voice of reason!)

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Don't go out of your way to make it personal people, it needn't be.
And yeah Yoda ... We basically don't agree on the 'value' (eww language :/) of an unborn child. I don't advocate 'babykilling' at all but I don't wriggle out of being pro-abortion or whatever. I think whereas there would be more overall benefit (I am fairly utilitarian I guess) by working in favour of the mother as opposed to the unborn child. As you and some other people said in another post, its all about motive at the end of the day. I believe society would just run a lot smoother (ewww more language) kinda thing if abortion was allowed to be legal when it was really necesary. Whereas you have a strong principals regarding human life, I believe that some motives allow exemption.
While language is bugging me, as it always will in this kinda thing, I also think we probably have different interpretations on concepts such as 'innocence' and 'justice'.

reply from: yoda

Of course you do. You advocate for the legality and availability of an action which kills babies, what could be your problem with "probabykilling"?
I don't use the term "motives", I think that "morality" best suits my objections to abortion. And my morality doesn't make any "exemptions" to the right to life of an innocent human being, for "practical" or any other reason. If it did, it wouldn't really be a moral principle, would it?
I don't even refer to justice, because that's a foreign concept to anyone who is thinking about killing their unborn child, isn't it? But as far as innocence goes, there is no better example of that than an unborn child.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Yes, so you agree with me that we have different opinions on the matter. I don't think we'll get any further by debating it - been and done.
Anyway, few more questions I have been pondering.
When does a child become a living human being?
Do you use medicine?
If the birth of a child meant certain death for both the mother and the child, should abortion still not be an option?
And yoda, out of interest where would you put yourself on the political spectrum if anywhere?

reply from: nsanford

Yea, rape is forced upon the woman, but then DEATH/mutilation is forced upon the second victim who did nothing!
Abortion won't undue the rape. And, the woman will always remember the rape, whether she aborts or not.
That is true. But the women still deserves a choice whether she wants to give birth. You don't seem to understand the concequences of forcing someone to have a child.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, rape is forced upon the woman, but then DEATH/mutilation is forced upon the second victim who did nothing!
Abortion won't undue the rape. And, the woman will always remember the rape, whether she aborts or not.
That is true. But the women still deserves a choice whether she wants to give birth. You don't seem to understand the concequences of forcing someone to have a child.
She doesn't deserve the choice of abortion. No one deserves the choice to kill a child.
That's the number one concept you don't seem to grasp.
If a woman has sex and gets pregnant... well... that's something she did, and she should have been more careful. But she's going to take the easy way out and just get rid of the life she helped create, FOR A SELFISH REASON!
I sure wouldn't have wanted to have been one of those babies that were aborted, and I'm sure if they had lived, they would have thought the same thing. It's sad you just say "oh well" like abortion/killing is no big deal, and that it is okay. But it's not.

reply from: dignitarian

Then the burden of proof lies with the proposer, or the one who wishes to change the status quo.
Generalizing in this way is a cop out, however. When a claim is made, it should generally be substantiated if that is requested, unless it is common knowledge.
Substantiated? I could substantiate this inside and out (as I have many times over already), but why would Sigma care about substantiation?
After all (according to Sigmonian Rights Theory), if human slavery happened to be constitutional, it would then necessarily be a "right". With this kind of view, why the need for any substantiation?
Regards,
Dignitarian

reply from: ThunderKitten

I don't know if AshMarie88 has ever had a kid. If she has, then I'd say yes, she does understand the consequences of having a child. If not, she may or may not realize what it entails.
Now, me? I had a kid. I hated pregnancy. Over a year later and I still tell my daughter how glad I am that she's not living inside of me anymore. Birth was ok, though (no meds). The vaginal exams were the most painful part of giving birth (imagine having someone stick their fingers in your cervix while having a contraction...). Did that experience make me think abortion is ok? HELL NO! Suck it up, ladies! If you're pregnant it's too damn late to go back.
Ok, I DO have a lot of sympathy for women who are pregnant and miserable, but that doesn't ever exscuse abortion.

reply from: yoda

Excellent way to put it, T-Kitten.

reply from: yoda

All children ARE human beings. New human beings are formed at fertilization.
Well I'm certainly not a Christian Scientist. Why?
I prefer to call it "early delivery" because the object ought to be to terminate the pregnancy, not to kill the baby.
I'm a tree-hugging liberal, why?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok then.
Can you explain the "early delivery" thing?
I gather from your other views you mean stop the pregnancy in some way before the egg is fertilised? If so ... What if she's a couple of weeks pregnant already and for whatever reason, there was guaranteed death for both parties should the pregnancy be brought to term?

reply from: yoda

Early delivery is the most humane way to end a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. It's simply that, you deliver the baby by a method that preserves whatever chances the baby has to live, with the goal of saving both patients. You do everything humanly possible to save both lives, with the knowledge that premies are living at younger and younger ages, and new techniques may push that boundary back even further.
Before the egg is fertilized, there is no pregnancy..... and that's called contraception. I'm in favor of that for those not ready for parenthood.
After fertilization and implantation, pregnancy begins. If a mother has a condition that will preclude carrying to full term, the physican can determine to what age the baby can be safely gestated before "early delivery" must be made.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok cool, I honestly didn't expect there to be a real answer to that one, thought it was the pro-life conundrum. Sounds like a fairly good option in those circumstances. Those circumstances are possibly the worst as well so its good to know there is a 'safe(er)' way out.
How good is the technology so far?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok cool, I honestly didn't expect there to be a real answer to that one, thought it was the pro-life conundrum. Sounds like a fairly good option in those circumstances. Those circumstances are possibly the worst as well so its good to know there is a 'safe(er)' way out.
How good is the technology so far?
And why did I ask you those questions? Well basically its good to know who you're debating with, most of the questions are irrelevent now anyway due to other discussions we've had since. As for medicine question, I think the use of science in life, birth and death is a pretty weighty one to discuss - and that niggling word 'nature' always comes up too.

reply from: yoda

I think the record is about 20 weeks.
Yeah, I use it a lot, as an agnostic.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

You use the word 'nature' a lot?
Or you mean you're a prescription drug abuser?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Oh right ... Its too slippery to pin down for my liking.
The best way i'd term it is : Nature 'is'.
You follow? Its almost somewhat post-modern, although that's pretty much become a dirty word as far as real debate goes.

reply from: yoda

I'm forced to rely on that word at times, due to my lack of religious affiliation. It can be interchanged with words that represent a diety, of course.

reply from: Tam

Just curious--have there ever been any cases where the presence of a first-trimester baby directly threatened the life of his/her mother? Not sure how that would happen.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I know what you mean about reliance, in that kind of instance i'm usually talking about dictionary defined nature. I also know what you're getting at the with deity thing, although that should always be explicitly mentioned - could get even more confusing than it already is.
I think everything that ever is or was is nature. From a daisy in a meadow to a multi-national corporation stamping on the daisy and concreting over the meadow. From a baby being born to a baby being aborted. All these things occur naturally.
That's my definition - possibly the most succinctly I've ever explained it .. Possibly.

reply from: Tam

You think, seriously now, that surgical or chemical abortion and paving meadows "occur naturally"? Have you any familiarity with nature? Where do you see any evidence of anything of the sort in nature? .... ??? It's not there! You can't redefine "nature" as "everything that ever is or was"--that's ridiculous. That means that everything is "natural" from the most actually natural stuff to the most horrifically perverse stuff I couldn't think of in my worst nightmares. Hello? That just makes no sense.

reply from: Sigma

I wouldn't presume to speak for Voice of Reason, but what is meant may be something along the lines of this: We are part of nature ourselves. What we do is then also part of nature. When monkeys make tools out of twigs, that is part of nature and when we make concrete it is using nature and so it is part of nature.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Spot on Sigma. Well put.
Everything from the bacteria living on our skin through to us, the bacteria living on the skin of the earth - is nature.
Might be a slight tangent, but most of you are from America - a country originally populated by a culture that arguably coexisted in harmony with nature better than any other culture that has ever been. The Redskins had a sound philosophy on life. In fact, as pro-lifers romanticise over the sadness of killing unborn children - I often romanticise over the death of such a beautiful lifestlye. Still, this death was a natural and inevitable one.

reply from: Tam

I couldn't disagree more with everything you wrote in this post, from "Spot on Sigma" to "this death was a natural and inevitable one."
I am interested to see any definition of "nature" that includes such concepts as you have claimed are natural.

reply from: yoda

I don't think most Native Americans care for the label "redskins", by the way. There were at least 500 distinct tribes here when europeans first came, so there's no way to lump all their "philosophies" together. They had many different ways of looking at things. And many of them were conquerors, just like the Romans, and just like us, and none of them really cared about the "enviorment", they just wanted plenty of buffalo. And as far as we know, none of them ever killed unborn babies.
So much for your romantic notions.

reply from: Tam

I don't think most Native Americans care for the label "redskins", by the way.
Whoa, can't believe I missed that the first time. You're absolutely right, Yoda, that is an ethnic slur! TVOR, edit that out of your post or I will report it to the moderator. Ethnic slurs are forbidden on this forum.
Quite right.
I think that is false. I think there is ample evidence that most if not all First Nations peoples had great respect for the Earth and lived in harmony with the environment. If you are aware of actual evidence of your statement that "none" of them "really cared" about the Earth, and were only concerned with buffalo, please share it.

reply from: yoda

I don't have a link, but I've seen documentaries about archeological digs around old Native American campsites. They had trash dumps just like we do. There is no evidence that they went out of their way to "preserve the enviornment" at all.
They were relatively small in numbers, and primitive in technology, so their enviornmental footprint was relatively small, through no effort of their own. Sure, they had lots of religious references to "Mother Earth" and such, but that's a far cry from being enviornmental police. They didn't need to be, from their standpoint, because there was so much open land, and most of their trash was "biodegradable" anyway.

reply from: Tam

I don't have a link, but I've seen documentaries about archeological digs around old Native American campsites. They had trash dumps just like we do. There is no evidence that they went out of their way to "preserve the enviornment" at all.
But was there stuff in the trash piles that was unnatural and not biodegradable? If so, where did it come from? At that time, there was no plastic. A trash heap of buffalo bones and clamshells isn't exactly an environmental hazard. All species leave traces of their existence on the planet--that doesn't constitute an anti-environmental stance.
That's right, their environmental footprint was small.
Exactly. I don't think any of this adds up to evidence that "none of them cared about the environment" whatsoever. I think furthermore that the fact that they had religion centered around love of, and living in harmony with, the Earth is evidence that they did care about the environment. I imagine if there had BEEN an environmental threat, they would have opposed it. In fact, I suspect there are truckloads of evidence that what few descendants remain today generally oppose environmental destruction for much the same reasons their ancestors honored the Earth.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just standing up for those who aren't here to speak for themselves.

reply from: yoda

No it doesn't. Fact is we have no way of knowing about any enviornmental concerns (or lack thereof) they had, because they left no record of it.
Many of them had dieties that were part of, or connected to, the earth in some way. That made it necessary to have "spiritual harmony" with those parts of the earth, anyway. But there's really no evidence that they ever went out of their way, or made any extra effort to "preserve" the enviornment. They just used it as the found it, and left it behind like they used it, apparently.

reply from: ThunderKitten

As the topic is rape, I'm wondering if anyone here only favors abortion in limited circumstances, such as rape, but otherwise oppses it? And if so, what their logic is? Or does everyone here who faovrs "choice in case of rape" just generally favor abortion when the mother feels like it, anyway? And if the later, what's the point of even bringing up rape, specifically, then?

reply from: Hereforareason

Rape + muder doesn't = everything okay.
Amber

reply from: Sigma

Generally, pro-lifers cite the fact that the woman chose to have sex as justification for disallowing abortion. So, then, obviously if the woman did not choose to have sex it would logically allow abortion.

reply from: TruthExists

You are obviously not a father...

reply from: Sigma

To whom is this directed?

reply from: AshMarie88

The ONLY death that is natural is non-forced and non-premeditated.
Abortion death? Not natural. Murder? Not natural. Suicide? Not natural.
Death from old age? Natural. Diseases? Natural.

reply from: Hereforareason

No, it just means that this woman didn't act foolishly and seek to cover up her mistake. It means she was victimized. So she should then turn and victimize her child?
No! I'ts a human being!
Amber

reply from: yoda

Very few prolifers say that, and it's irrelevant and immaterial to why abortion is immoral and wrong.
Abortion is wrong, not because of anything the mother or father did, but because the baby has done nothing at all wrong. And yet the baby is the one that gets killed.
And how is the killing of innocent babies justified? Oh, the lifestyle of the woman must be preserved, even at the cost of her baby's life..... or so say the probabykilling advocates.

reply from: Sigma

In a choice between the woman being victimized herself and "victimizing" (it is difficult to victimize something that cannot suffer by the general usage of the term) the fetus within her, I would choose the woman's happiness.
The point, however, is why pregnant-by-rape is brought up by pro-choice people when it generally does not happen.

reply from: yoda

"Choose the woman"...... what? Why do you always stop short of saying "I'd want her to kill her baby"............????

reply from: Hereforareason

The woman has already been victimized Sigma. We are not talking about rape being good or bad, we are talking about what she does after being raped.
So, let's say I have been raped. Now, I'm going to go out and kill my first child, because I only have enough support to raise one. But I'm kind of tired of him, and I'm hoping for a girl anyway.
No that doesn't make any sense. Your point will be I am sure, that she is forced to carry HIS child against her will. Well, besides the fact that it is also HER child, she is shedding blood. Shedding blood, because she was injured. Doesn't that sound sick?
Amber

reply from: AshMarie88

In a choice between the woman being victimized herself and "victimizing" (it is difficult to victimize something that cannot suffer by the general usage of the term) the fetus within her, I would choose the woman's happiness.
The point, however, is why pregnant-by-rape is brought up by pro-choice people when it generally does not happen.
Someone once said that you can forgive someone if they have done wrong unto you. But if it's you doing wrong upon another person, it's a completely different story.

reply from: Sigma

This is not analogous to my view. She can remove that child from her care by giving it up for adoption, or abort what she is currently carrying.
Because she continues to be injured, more like. She would be "shedding blood" of the one using her body, just as she would be shedding the blood of the rapist to kill him as he attacks her.

reply from: Sigma

Yes. Shouldn't this be a choice to do? If this is enforced by law are you really forgiving anyone?

reply from: AshMarie88

Because she continues to be injured, more like. She would be "shedding blood" of the one using her body, just as she would be shedding the blood of the rapist to kill him as he attacks her.
The only difference is, the child isn't attacking her or harming her.

reply from: Hereforareason

No, shedding the blood of the rapist to kill him would be self defense. The other would be killing a baby who is "minding it's own business" and right where it is supposed to be.
Amber

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88
The fetus places stress on her body and uses her body against her will. It is similar in that way.
Hereforareason
Both the rapist and the fetus are using her body against her will. The fetus is no rapist but to believe it is justified to kill someone (the rapist) to prevent them from using your body (being raped) against your will is similar to believing killing someone (the fetus) to prevent them from continued use of your body (being pregnant) against your will is justified.
I see you agree that both the rapist and disallowing abortion give the woman no choice in whether her body will be used.

reply from: yoda

Only the rapist is doing something consciously to hurt the woman. Only the rapist is being aggressive towards the woman. Only the rapist is guilty of anything.
The baby is the victim, not the perpetrator.

reply from: Tam

No it doesn't. Fact is we have no way of knowing about any enviornmental concerns (or lack thereof) they had, because they left no record of it.
Um, I think the fact that, unlike our civilization, they didn't destroy the planet speaks volumes. I think the fact that our civilization is the only civilization that is destroying the planet also speaks volumes.
Many of them had dieties that were part of, or connected to, the earth in some way. That made it necessary to have "spiritual harmony" with those parts of the earth, anyway. But there's really no evidence that they ever went out of their way, or made any extra effort to "preserve" the enviornment. They just used it as the found it, and left it behind like they used it, apparently.
Well, I don't care to keep trying to convince anyone, but IMO it's patently obvious, based on everything we know about their lifestyles, that the First Nations peoples, in general, cared very much about the Earth and about living in harmony with nature, and that this was the most important aspect of their entire way of life and the foundation of all that was sacred to them. If you disagree, fine, we disagree. But it's one thing to state that in your opinion there is not enough evidence to support my position, and another thing entirely to state as though it were factual your opinion that they didn't care at all about the environment, based on such flimsy evidence that a pile of biodegradeable refuse is cited as even partial proof. That's why I leaped to defend them, because it seemed like an unfair attack based on nothing anywhere near as concrete as the opposing position. I think it's easy for us, in our mechanized and apathetic culture, to wish that other cultures, so-called "primitive" cultures, lived with the same sort of selfishness and apathy we see around us, because it would make us feel less guilty about what is clearly an immoral and destructive attitude on our parts, but I really think that when a culture's entire existence centers around living in harmony with the Earth and all creatures living here, taking only what one needs and using what one takes, that such an attitude is far superior to our own in terms of sustainability and environmental stewardship. That doesn't mean that First Nations peoples were perfect and that we should model our lives after theirs in every detail. But for anyone participating whatsoever in our environmental juggernaut of a culture to make a blanket statement that "none" of them "really cared about the 'environment'" is not only irresponsible in that the statement is not supported by the evidence, but also hypocritical in that any degree of apathy on the part of any First Nations culture is an infinitesemal fraction of the apathy exhibited by the culture to which we belong, which is destroying the planet in ways those people couldn't have imagined in their worst nightmares, and against which I believe they would have fought tooth and nail.
Still not trying to argue with you Yoda. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of rape...

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

'back to our regularly scheduled discussion of rape'
Oh dear what have we become?!?
Alright then we'll get back to it in a second!
Ok, as far as Indians are concerned I know I generalised about their philosophy - as I said it was a romantic notion (one which I compared to pro-lifer's views on abortion). Seeing as it was just a sidenote anyway it did not deem it necesary to write an essay on them and how they were all different. I did not expect to be criticised for saying it.
Oh and by the way, 'redskins' was not used as a derogatory expression, I just like the word. I was not aware it was a 'racial slur' as you put it. I personally believe words alone cannot be 'racial slurs', they need intent behind them. The fact you pick up on this and threaten to ban me is a hilarious example of political correctness gone mad. (Interestingly enough I think its the people that can misunderstand what racism is that are the ones that tend to misunderstand what morality is).
And Tam is right for the mostpart as far as I can tell.
However, a few things I'm sure she'd disagree with about their culture (which I strongly agree with) is their acceptance of death and lack of ego. Their responsibility was to the long-term survival of the tribe and they would often commit suicide / take lives of others for the greater good.
If an old man was hobbling behind a migrating band, he would more often than not give up his own life and die by exposure as to not slow down their overall progress. If a tribe was in hiding from their enemy and a baby started wailing and giving away their position - its mother would quickly smother it as she saw its life as no more important than the rest of the tribe's.
Although they placed huge value in life - they did not fear death, just saw it as a part of the circle. (The circle thing I think is a brilliant piece of their philosophy and is an applicable symbol to so many aspects of their lives).
Totally unrelated, but I recently heard something about tax-exempt natives starting to exploit the American economy? If so - fair play to 'em! It's not justice but its revenge.

reply from: yoda

Technology. We have it, they didn't.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of rape...

reply from: cali1981

And that's where your position falls apart. Pro-lifers do not value the unborn child's life over that of his/her mother. Saying that one person shouldn't be able to kill another does NOT equate with saying that the latter person is valued more! If I tell you that you can't kill your best friend, does that mean that I think he is worth more than you are? NO! It means I am saying that his life is more important than the reasons you have for wanting to kill him. That's all.

reply from: cali1981

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Technically speaking, "not allowing people to exercise choice" is what MAKES a society - because LAWS make a society. And every law in existence is meant to deny people the ability to choose a particular activity. Some choices are not acceptable!

reply from: cali1981

First of all, she also had the choice to refrain from killing the child while it was inside her body and then give him/her up for adoption. Funny how you didn't mention that.
Second of all, parenting a child does not equal "throwing away the rest of one's life." My wife and I have a young child and we are very young. We have still been able to pursue our dreams and have a happy life, and I'm looking forward to a very happy future for us. Responsibility for a child does not mean that one's life ends. That is a lie.

reply from: cali1981

Sigh. We have gone over this so many times, but I guess it can't hurt to repeat. Prohibiting or discouraging abortion has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a woman to have a child. If a woman is pregnant, SHE HAS A CHILD, and that child WILL be born. No one is forcing any of that to happen. The only thing left to be decided is whether that child will be born alive or dead.

reply from: cali1981

No, not at all. I'm not here to say that allowing children to continue living is a punishment to their mothers for choosing to have sex. That is a PERVERSION of my position. I'm here to say that all innocent human beings deserve to continue living.

reply from: cali1981

So wrong! The child had absolutely nothing to do with his/her creation or subsequent location. The child can do absolutely nothing against his/her mother's will, as he/she is totally helpless. It is always someone else's will that creates the situation, which makes it all the more ridiculous for the mother to reject someone else's will by killing an innocent bystander.

reply from: cali1981

We talked about this issue at length last summer. I'll be happy to repeat some of the discussion to highlight some of the problems with this issue.
Many people like to state that abortion has no direct effect on causing breast cancer, even citing research to back this up. Two common quotes are from the American Cancer Society and the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." -American Cancer Society
"Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." -New England Journal of Medicine
These are strawmen. The reason is because of the underlined words: "cause-and-effect" and "overall." I will address the "cause-and-effect" part first.
No research has ever made a statement one way or another about a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer. It is impossible for any medical study to show any cause-and-effect relationship of this sort. The only way for a research study to show cause-and-effect is to use an experimental rather than a correlational method. In this case, that would mean randomly selecting a sample of pregnant women, randomly putting them into experimental conditions of "abort" and "don't-abort," and forcing the ones in the experimental condition to abort their babies, while preventing the ones in the control condition from doing so. That way, if a statistically significant difference is found in the incidence of breast cancer between the two groups, it can be assumed that the difference is due to the experimental condition (abortion) and nothing else, since the two groups were randomized to be equal in every other respect.
Obviously, ethics codes will prevent such a study from ever taking place, in the same way that ethics prevents direct experimentation to discover the effects of tobacco smoking on subsequent development of lung cancer. In that case, one would have to randomize participants into two conditions; the ones in the experimental condition would be forced to smoke, and those in the control condition would be prevented from doing so. No study has ever done that, either, and as such, no study has ever proven that smoking "has a direct effect on causing lung cancer." But, significant correlations between the two have repeatedly been found, and that is also the case for studies involving abortion and breast cancer.
Next, I will address the problems with talking about "overall" risk. Overall risk is not the issue when talking about the possibility of a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. In order to appreciate this, one must understand the general theory as to why abortion might cause breast cancer. Here it is:
Once you read this theory, it becomes clear that if one is to test and see whether it is true, studies must carefully control for age and timing of the abortion (either before or after the first live birth). It would make no sense to study all women who abort, without regard for these things, because the connection theory does not contend that all women who abort are at an elevated risk. In other words, overall risk is not the issue.
It is common for abortion advocates to cite a certain Swedish study to help them discredit a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. The conclusions of this study nicely illustrate both of the problems I just described. Here is a summary:
"A large cohort study was done in Sweden. It followed, for as long as 20 years beginning in 1966, 49,000 women who had received abortions before the age of 30. Not only did the study show no indication of an overall risk of breast cancer after an induced abortion in the first trimester, but it also suggested that there could well be a slightly reduced risk (Lindefors Harris et al., 1989)."
Now it is obvious that when they say,
this result is not relevant to our discussion. Overall risk was never the issue. Connection theorists have never claimed that every woman who loses a pregnancy has a greater risk of breast cancer, but that women who have their first pregnancy terminated are at a greater risk. This Swedish study did not focus on women who aborted their first pregnancy. (And it would be difficult for them to do this, because in Sweden, unlike America, most women who get legal abortions have already had one or more children, and thus most women in this study have the lower risk of breast cancer associated with the protective effect of the first full pregnancy.)
Also, the Swedish study made no effort to identify a control group. They compared the group they were studying (which included women who already had children in addition to the first-pregnancy abortions) to the total population (which included other women who had also had abortions) rather than to women who had never had abortions.
These methodological errors make it easy to mask a connection that may exist between abortion and breast cancer for women aborting their first pregnancies, because they're not studying the right group and they're not comparing it to a control group. Many other studies are designed in this way as well. The important point to note is the following: Studies that lump all abortions together and fail to find an increase in breast cancer are not inconsistent with the possibility of a connection between an increased risk of breast cancer following the termination of only a first pregnancy. And studies that do focus on only the first pregnancy do tend to find a moderate increase in breast cancer. (References can be provided.)
Of course, the study doesn't even address the possibility of a "cause-and-effect" relationship. It can't find one because it's not possible to find one with a correlational design. Of course, their design could barely be called correlational because they compared two groups that were essentially the same.
The whole issue is much more complex than it looks on the surface. There is plenty of methodologically flawed research being done, and there is plenty of deception used in the terminology of reporting the results. This is important enough to highlight that I think I'll start a new thread.

reply from: yoda

Well put and irrefutable, cali!

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

The Indians did have technology it just wasn't as 'advanced' as ours.
Talking about 'value' of life is useless with pro-lifers because even suggesting a baby's life is less 'valuable' than the life of anything else would have you incensed.
How is the notion of interfering with one's private life being a cause of conflict a ridiculous notion? As for your views on how humanity forms social rules and laws ... Irrefutable? Just conservative.
Well that's explains a lot about your kind of politics doesn't it.
Well that's all untrue anyway, as I have stated time and time again, social laws all come from the root of preventing the omni bellum omni. A mother killing her child does not instigate social unrest - until people like you decide its 'wrong' and thus declare war on mother's like this and those who stand up for her. Some choices are not acceptable because they divide and cause conflict among the populace ... In the case of pro-lifers and pro-choicers, who is it making these choices causing the conflict?
I love it when pro-lifers play the adoption card since I criticised it as an idealist notion, then yoda tells me it was a ridiculous idea in the first place and that "no other pro-babykillingadvocate has ever suggested we believe in such idiocy" or something to that effect.
That aside, adoption ... Well, I think its all a bit of a pipedream really to be honest with you. How many of you have adopted children whom their mother would have aborted but decided not to in light of the fact you would care for them? I also think that if all pro-lifers were in favour of adopting kids to save 'innocent' lives and the such, the third world would have a lot less starving children than it does now. You can do that you know, adopt underpriveledged children from all over the world.... But you probably know that already - because you're actively looking to adopt any children in need, right? Good on you guys.

reply from: cali1981

Well that's explains a lot about your kind of politics doesn't it.
Well that's all untrue anyway, as I have stated time and time again, social laws all come from the root of preventing the omni bellum omni.
No, no, no. I am not expressing ANY sort of "view on how humanity forms social rules and laws." (I'm nowhere near a conservative, either.) I am pointing out the nature of laws and what they do. By definition, every law in existence is meant to deny people the opportunity to choose a particular activity (I say "meant to" because even laws cannot actually PREVENT people from engaging in an activity). Laws against stealing are meant to prevent people from choosing to steal. Laws against murder are meant to deny people the choice to murder. EVERY LAW denies someone the choice to do something. Furthermore, having laws is one of the things that separates a society from anarchistic chaos. All of this is why your statement, "Not allowing people to exercise choice is ultimately detrimental to society," is ridiculous.
There is nothing particularly noble about the concept of "exercising choice." There are plenty of choices that a society cannot allow an individual to make.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Have you ever heard of John Stuart Mill? (Don't assume this reference means I find his word gospel)

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Have you ever heard of John Stuart Mill? (Don't assume this reference means I find his word gospel) - Although he does make some brilliant points

reply from: cali1981

We don't decide what acts to allow and what acts not to allow based on how much "social unrest" they cause. Are you familiar with the Constitution? We decide what is and is not allowed based on people's rights. By your logic, any child of any age could be killed by his/her mother as long as it wouldn't disturb society too much overall. Guess what? If my wife and I killed our little girl in cold blood tonight, not too much social unrest would be caused. That doesn't make it right! It also doesn't mean that our doing so should be acceptable by law or that people who might oppose us are wrong.
Guess what? I would do that in a second if I knew of such a situation. But situations like that are almost never available to pro-lifers! Do you honestly think it happens often that a pregnant woman calls up a pro-life organization or a pro-life person and says, "I'm going to kill this child if you don't adopt him/her or find someone who will"? They don't do that! They decide to abort, then abort, and most of the time no one ever even finds out that they were pregnant. If every pregnant woman announced her intentions like that to pro-lifers, or there were another way for us to be aware of them, you can be sure that we would do exactly as you say.
As far as the need for adoption, we agree. There are tons of pro-lifers standing in line right now for the privilege of adopting a child from many parts of the world. The adoption process is difficult, but that does not mean that people are not trying.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Good man cali - that's an highly commendable thing to do but as you say yourself its a difficult process. I often complain that the pro-life cause doesn't care about wider issues enough but I guess I was wrong if what you say is true - I hope this is also true of all the other forum-goers.
I can see how you might reach such a conclusion about killing children by abstracting my logic but its something of a strawman. Technically though, if you really deemed a great enough reason to (but due to the fact you were allowed this decision pre-birth there is no real reason), and nobody else in society knew of your daughter and you didn't get caught, you could kill her in cold blood and there would be no social unrest.
Anyway i'm tired and find it hard to make coherent posts, moff to bed, shall resume later.

reply from: yoda

Which WAS the point, actually..............
That's ludicrous. You can create any "scale of value" you wish for the lives of the various classes of human beings, that's really no problem. The problem arises when you "hint/infer/suggest" that having a "higher value life" gives one the moral right to take (kill) the life of annother innocent human being. We just don't like your using your "variable scale of the worth of some people's lives" as an EXCUSE TO KILL.
Ah, so it's all our fault, because we are revolted and disgusted by the idea of a mother killing her children, right? We should be "cosmopolitan, suave, and sophisticated", right? We should just look the other way, and the kids be damned, right? Gee, thanks for explaining that!

reply from: Sigma

cali1981, whether of its own free will or not, the fetus does place stress on the woman's body against the woman's will and without her consent.
I said Generally. It is not always the justification.

reply from: yoda

And the woman can place a lot of stress on the unborn baby. Should the postpartum baby have the right to kill the mother that caused that stress? What about a little equal treatment here? Or, should they both treat each other with the respect and dignity due to innocent human beings who have both been unintentionally placed in an uncomfortable or even burdensome position? Or would that be too "emotional" for you and yours?
Or does the prospect of allowing innocent life to continue just gross you out?

reply from: ThunderKitten

Speaking of rape- what's everyone's position in regards to sticking thermometers up babies' butts? 1. I really don't think it's necessary to anally rape an infant to find out his/her temperature, even if there were no other way to find out. 2. There are other ways to take a temperature! Under the arm, off the forehead, geeze!
Why the heck do books and doctors promote this barbaric and absolutely unnecessary practice? Why aren't they arrested? I would NEVER allow anyone to do that to MY child!

reply from: yoda

Thanks, cali, but I'm afraid you've jinxed them now..... probabykilling advocates always ignore "good questions"........

reply from: Tam

Huh...I never really thought about it, although I will say that one of my earliest memories is of having this done to me by a doctor, and I was none too happy about it at the time. I have a feeling I would never allow anyone to do this to my children. Now there are such sensitive thermometers that nothing needs to be inserted into anywhere, I think. I agree, it is barbaric to do that to a child.
You know what ELSE is barbaric? The way many children are birthed--loud noise, bright light, turned upside down and spanked as their first experience in the world outside the womb...ever read "Birth Without Violence" by Frederick LeBoyer (originator of the term "LeBoyer Bath" that refers to the process of placing an infant--up to the neck--in a bath of warm water shortly after birth as a way of soothing and comforting the newborn)? Great book, and one I highly recommend to anyone who ever plans to give birth to a child.

reply from: xnavy

i can't believe another pro choice comparing a fetus to a disease. a tumor is a disease
that kills the host. a fetus will not kill the mother.


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