Home - List All Discussions

I'm a newbie

by: bobinsky

Hi, all. I'm a newbit, invited by Amber. She and I have debated different subject, usually abortion, on another forum. I find Amber to be a very intelligent, honest woman who has much to offer in the way of faith in her God. Amber and I look at abortion from opposite ends of the spectrum, but we are always courteous and polite in our discussions because there really is no reason NOT to be courteous. My beliefs concerning abortion have been formed because of my work as an attorney. Life is never black and white, and for those of us who have spent a great deal of time working with women who are facing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and listening to their stories and their life situations, I find it imperative that they be allowed to make what can be the most personal decision they will ever make without coercion from either pro-life or pro-choice groups. As a pro-choice person, I will support whatever decision a woman makes, whether it be to terminate the pregnancy, have the baby and keep it or give it up for adoption. This is what choice is all about. I have seen far too much in the abortion wars to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade is for the good of the mother involved. The woman is my primary concern.

reply from: theflyingpen

Welcome! I hope dialogue and healthy debate are the result of your visit here.

May I ask why the woman is your only primary concern? Or is there a reason you dismiss the child in favor of the mother?

reply from: ChristianLott

The woman can not be your primary concern. What kind of society even gives a woman the 'choice' to murder her own child? It's perverted. It's also murder.

The reality is, the woman who TRULY desires to murder her own child is a homicidal maniac and should be restrained.

That's what we do to men who wish to kill those who they don't like or who are in the way.

Changing the rules for women is hypocrisy and it does not change the nature of the moral crime. Abortion is violence against the youngest and most innocent human life.

reply from: sarah

What about the woman who is in the womb, there's a 50-50 chance it IS a woman...why aren't her rights considered, since we're talking about women's rights at the moment?

BTW, welcome Bobinsky!

reply from: mom5

Welcome again!

"The woman is my primary concern"

Well, so is mine...her health...her emotional health...her family...her boyfriend... her husband...her child... When you talk about the woman, you talk about all those involved in her life, when you talk about abortion, you talk about HER innocent child, which could be another woman.

reply from: Hereforareason

Welcome Bobinsky! Glad to see you came over.

Amber here. I have a different user name.

Ah, thanks for the compliment.

I"m here mainly to learn. haven't tried my hand out at any debates yet.

I hope you enjoy your time here! Talk to Poppa.

Amber

reply from: yoda

Welcome, bobinsky.

Most ProChoicers who make that statement admit that they will not support the "choice" to terminate the child after birth, but are not very clear on why not.

Can you tell us why you don't support her "choice" after birth?

reply from: bobinsky

This is my hope also. There really is no reason that insults and rudeness should take place on these board amongst adults. And more often than not, looking past all the differences we may have, most time there are things we debaters have in common concerning the issue(s).

My primary concern is with the mother and her mental and physical well-being. In the instances of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, it is the woman who is affected most personally. I do not "dismiss" the fetus, but the feelings and emotions of the mother and the situation she finds herself in outweigh the fetus's position.

reply from: bobinsky

Christian, with all due respect, I'll be honest with you and tell you that I don't think it worth responding to your posts. I've seen you on other forums besides this one and normally there can be a common ground for discourse, but I don't see that to be the case with you. You are certainly entitled to your feelings and opinions.

reply from: bobinsky

Thanks for the kind welcome, Sarah.

The gender of the fetus is not an issue in the instance of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. And again, with all due respect, the question is phrased oddly because a female fetus is no more a "woman" than a six-week old female baby is a "woman". We're discussing the rights of adult females and minor females who can consent to a procedure. I would hope that you can discern the difference between a female fetus and an adult woman.

reply from: bobinsky

Hi Mom5. Does this mean you have 5 children? If so, you must be one busy woman!

The woman who is carrying the fetus is the one most affected by situation and my concern is for HER mental/emotional and physical health and well-being. In making her decision, she may consider the concerns and wishes of her family/boyfriend/husband/child(?), but ultimately it is her decision because it is her body. Her family, her boyfriend, her husband is not carrying the fetus and, in all actuality, can remove themselves/himself at any point during the pregnancy, as often happens with unmarried women who find themselves faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
Again, as I said to Sarah, the gender of the fetus is not an issue with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. As an attorney who has worked adoptions, the only time the gender of the fetus comes into play is when prospective parents want a specific gender, or when parents planning a pregnancy hope for a specific gender. With a mother carrying an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, the PREGNANCY is the issue.

reply from: bobinsky

Hi Amber. Good to "see" you again. I imagine you're very busy with your crocheting/knitting. Hope all is well with you and your family.

I come to these board to read, listen and learn also. We all have much to learn from each other. As far as debating, you are a fine debater. Jump in!

reply from: yoda

By "the one" do you mean that you don't consider an unborn human to even be on the list of people who could be affected? That the death of said human does not even merit consideration?

By "the fetus's position", do you mean it's very life?

reply from: bobinsky

Thanks for the kind welcome, yoda.

Bobinsky said:

Yodavater responded:

Yoda, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I'm referring to terminating a pregnancy. Are we talking about the same thing? Whose "choice" after the birth are you referencing?
As I stated in my newbie post, there are essentially three options for women facing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies: terminate the pregnancy; continue the pregnancy and keep the child or give it up for adoption. I'm not sure which of these you are advocating.

reply from: ChristianLott

So you dismiss the father?

With all due respect, they don't have people like Jerry, Confused and OJ here, so the debates never break down to name calling.

Ask anyone here if I've ever been anything less than polite. Or suit your own interests and don't post under topics which I start and I will do the same for you.

http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_31.asp

http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_17.asp

Is abortion done for sex selection?

We won't even mention China.

Either my ex girlfriend has been taking pills for four years to convince her the abortion never happened or she really does believe murdering preborn babies okay and she's just 'became' a drug addict. I never cared about the fetus, I just know more facts than you and know you're promoting baby butchering.

The shame - to have to carry a 'fetus' for nine months. Just say no to responsibility by ENDING the 'problem'. Men do it all the time and it's called murder and it's against the law.

It's also ILLEGAL to 'choose' abortion based on sex. Tiny complication. "Health" of the mother, remember?

According to Amber, you don't know what you're in for.

reply from: ChristianLott

He's talking about euthanasia like they do it in Belgium. For so many months or years after birth, you can say you don't want it and terminate it's babyhood. Infanticide.

reply from: bobinsky

I try to remain emotionally neutral in the discussion concerning abortion, so as far as appealing to emotion - "death of said human" - really doesn't sway me.

If that's the way you prefer to phrase it, then yes. The life of a fetus does not outweigh the life or health or considerations of a woman's life situation.

reply from: ChristianLott

If it was between the life of the mother vs that of child and the mother chose to allow the baby to live and herself die - there would be no law against this?

reply from: sarah

The gender of the fetus is not an issue in the instance of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. And again, with all due respect, the question is phrased oddly because a female fetus is no more a "woman" than a six-week old female baby is a "woman". We're discussing the rights of adult females and minor females who can consent to a procedure. I would hope that you can discern the difference between a female fetus and an adult woman.

I realize that a baby in the process of development, isn't a "woman" in the sense of having reached a certain age. But, given a fair chance, she will become a woman.
Herein lies quite a problem, I believe. Why is it that a certain age should matter at all? The gender is determined quite early in the pregnancy and since we're talking about a human being, the age shouldn't matter.
After 32 years of abortion on demand, the baby within the womb has been so de-humanized that nothing about the baby is of any consequence.
It really is about two bodies.

reply from: yoda

I'm asking you for your moral (NOT legal) position on the "termination" of the life of a child after birth by it's birth mother.

Most pro-choicers will not say that they support infanticide, but I get very few clear answers on the moral distinction between killing a newborn and killing a late-term fetus, for example. There might be only a few days or even hours difference between the two acts, so why is one morally acceptable to you and the other not?

reply from: yoda

Why is that? Why do you want to remain cold and unemotional about abortion?

"Life situation"? The life of an innocent unborn human being does not "outweigh" a woman's desire to have more money to spend, or more time to spend with her boyfriend? What "value" do you place of human life, in US dollars? And how much does that value increase at birth?

reply from: shiprah

I try to remain emotionally neutral in the discussion concerning abortion, so as far as appealing to emotion - "death of said human" - really doesn't sway me.

You imply that "death of said human is emotionally charged language, but what in this phrase isn't bare fact. Do you disagree that the baby is human or that it dies?

reply from: shiprah

My primary concern is with the mother and her mental and physical well-being. In the instances of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, it is the woman who is affected most personally. I do not "dismiss" the fetus, but the feelings and emotions of the mother and the situation she finds herself in outweigh the fetus's position.

Why do the emotions and feelings of the mother outweight the fetus's position?

reply from: shiprah

The gender of the fetus is not an issue in the instance of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

And again, with all due respect, the question is phrased oddly because a female fetus is no more a "woman" than a six-week old female baby is a "woman".

We're discussing the rights of adult females and minor females who can consent to a procedure. I would hope that you can discern the difference between a female fetus and an adult woman.

Really, are you unfamiliar with sex-selective abortion? I thought you were well versed in unwanted pregnancies?Actually, biologically speaking, anything with two x chromosomes is a woman regardless ofa ge. The fact that you don't consider a female to be a woman simply because it isn't an a position to kill anyone reflects your bias, not scientific fact.

reply from: bobinsky

Well, my moral and legal position on the termination by anyone of the child after birth are the same: it is illegal and wrong.

The reason you probably get very few clear answers is because many people, pro-choicers, find this to be a moral quandry. For me it is not. One is an unborn fetus, the other a baby who has been birthed and is now an independent entity.
Also, I think this question, in my book at least, is an attempt to confuse the issue. The "hours or days" argument may matter to anti-choiers, but it's still a matter of a fetus and a choice.

reply from: shiprah

The woman who is carrying the fetus is the one most affected by situation and my concern is for HER mental/emotional and physical health and well-being. In making her decision, she may consider the concerns and wishes of her family/boyfriend/husband/child(?), but ultimately it is her decision because it is her body. Her family, her boyfriend, her husband is not carrying the fetus and, in all actuality, can remove themselves/himself at any point during the pregnancy, as often happens with unmarried women who find themselves faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
Again, as I said to Sarah, the gender of the fetus is not an issue with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. As an attorney who has worked adoptions, the only time the gender of the fetus comes into play is when prospective parents want a specific gender, or when parents planning a pregnancy hope for a specific gender. With a mother carrying an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, the PREGNANCY is the issue.

Actually, the person being created is the most affected by the pregnancy. I can't believe you suggest that a woman should ultimately make the decision without the father's approval on whether or not the child should be killed. Do you also support the Ancient Greek tradition of fathers determing whether or not to let live or die a newborn baby independent of the mother simply because he was the one who had to support the child? Do you think its okay for the baby to suffer the death penalty because the father may not want him or her. Again, you bring up the mistaken claim that gender isn't an issue in unwanted pregnancies. I'm not going to acknowledge the use of unplanned/unwanted because the two are not the same, many pregnancies are unwanted because of the gender of the child. IN some countries 7,999 babies aborted of every 8,000 or girls. In america, girls are 75% of abortions.

reply from: Della22

Hi, and welcome again bobinsky. I assume you are from the MM message board seeing as Lott has mentioned a few names I recognize from that board. I hope you find it to be a more respectful atmosphere here as I do.

Just a few things I find that I could never agree with in your legal and moral stand point I thought I would share:

First, you say it is in the best interest of a woman's physical and mental health. Even if I could make myself reason that abortion were moral simply because it's legal I cannot ignore the fact that a woman is at a higher risk of death from not only cancer and complications resluting from an abortion, but she is twice as likely to commit suicide in the year proceding her abortion. I listed a few facts in a post that is about a week or two old. The main resources from the papers I got these facts from were the New England and Oxford Journal of medicine and a large case study done in Finland in 1997. A woman not only increases her risk of breast, cervical and uterine cancer when she has an abortion, she also increases it by an even lareger number the more abortions she has. And she is usually so emotionally distraut afterward that she is twice as likely to kill herself the in proceding year. So to say that it is in a woman's best interest, in any way, to murder her unborn child is not at all true. She may have more money to satiate her appetite for food, clothing or whatever else makes her happy, but it takes more then THINGS to have a healthy life and body, would you agree?

As far as the term "woman" goes. If we were to say a fetus is not a woman if it is in fact female, we can also say that a young girl in kindgarten is not a "woman" either. Anyone underage is not a true woman. Does that mean they don't have the right to live? Or better yet, since it is a "woman's" choice as you stated before, is it right for a 16-year-old GIRL to have an abortion when she cannot even legally consent to get a tattoo?! You are just twisting the words here in an effort to make an abortion sound like a reasonable procedure and a decision that only a true woman can make when, in fact, "girls" are having them everyday. I don't know about you, but I can only classify the female of the species as GIRL or WOMAN. And if a GIRL has the right to a "choice" when she's 16 to kill her baby, doesn't a baby GIRL have the right to "CHOOSE" to live?

You said you are an attorney. When you here the words "death of said human" to mean the murder of a 30-year-old man does it sway you then? Does it make you angry that someone would take the life of someone else's son and grandson and nephew and uncle? Because the fetus could be the same to someone else. The truth of the matter is that fetuses need all the same things we need: oxygen, warmth, food, water. The only difference is that a fetus must obtain these things from the mother. But what's the difference when after birth the baby must depend on someone else again because it is still too young to get up and get a job in order to shelter and nurish itself. So the only difference then is oxygen. Does that mean it's okay to go putting kinks in the oxygen cords of the elderly? Or is it wrong simply because those cords are not called "umbilical" cords?

I think maybe dealing with people in a court room manner has left you a little unaware of how it is to deal with people on a rational, personal, and day-to-day basis. I am just curious, but were you always pro-"choice" (I cannot bring myself to call the advocacy of abortion a choice when there are so many other choices that don't involve death.) I certainly hope you never find yourself in the same kind of situation as these women whom you claim are better off for having abortions. It's best you just speculate than to live it.

I hope I have not offended you. Because it was not my intention, only to enlighten you from my own perspective. And in case you are wondering I am not biased because I am pregnant. I was once pro"choice" until someone brought it to my attention that there were many other choices out there for a woman and that nowdays it is healthier to have a cesarian than to have an abortion.

reply from: bobinsky

I am referring specifically to unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, not sex-selective abortions. The sex-selective pregnancies are unwanted only after the sex of the fetus is determined. Different story. Anything with two x chromosomes is a female. The word "woman" is reserved for females of a certain age. Also, little girl, girl, young girl, young woman - there are different terminiologies for different ages of a female. It is a scientific fact that female is the gender-specific term for a two chromosome baby. It has been this way since long before my time. When a female baby is delivered, does the doctor cry out, "It's a woman!"? No, s/he says, "It's a girl!". Seems to be more your bias than any bias on my part.

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, when I'm talking about abortion, I'm referring to those performed in the U.S. I'm not in the position to make judgments on what women in other countries, especially undeveloped third world countries are doing. In fact, none of us on the board are in that position.
As far as the father's "approval", when he starts carrying the fetus, I will fight for his position just as ardently. The Ancient Greek tradition has nothing at all to do with a woman in the 21st century decising to terminate an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. Another attempt at confusing the issue.
Again, as far as gender-selective abortions, such as those done in Asian countries, this is not part of my discussion. Their decisions are, unfortunately, based deeply in their culture, where girls are considered worthless and boys are desired.

reply from: bobinsky

I think you probably find it to be a more respectful admosphere here because you agree with the other posters.

Please cite your sources for this information so I can read through it. Thanks.

Again, please cite your sources. I find these claims to be spurious at best. Also, if you've got the time, google or yahoo some info on post-partum depression/psychoses/neuroses, the suicie rate of mothers after birth, and the death rates of women in through pregnancy/childbirth. There are many neutral, medical sites - the CDC is one of them - who have the information listed and who are not pushing an agenda.

I think there's a lot of word-twisting going on with your anti-choice persons. I'm merely specifying that there are different terms for different ages of female persons; are you denying this is so? A fetus, boy or girl, does not have decision-making capacity, so to attempt to insert "choice" into the argument at this stage is pointless.
There is a major life difference between getting a tattoo and forcing a 16 yo girl to go through with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. She is considered "of age" as far as consent. And unfortunately, I know many young girls, 16 and younger, with tattoos. They get around the laws somewhow. That some states allow girls and young women the right to choose to end a pregnancy shows that these states value the judgment of these girls/young women to make the decision that is best for them at their point in life. Also, it takes some of the heat off the parents of the girl/young woman.

See my post to shiprah in the "pro-abort" thread, I believe, as far as what I see and experience concerning abortion and decisions on a day-to-day basis. This is why I remain pro-choice, because I'm so deeply involved in the lives of these women. I have been pro-choice since the age of 18, as were my parents, as is my dear husband, as is our son. Strangely enough, our son's wife is anti-choice. We've had quite a few lively arguments about the topic, but we all come out the wiser and more respectful of each other.
My husband and I have been married 27 years in July and our son is 26. If you do the math, you'll find that we were "surprised" with a pre-marriage pregnancy; we were engaged, so we just moved the wedding up by several months. We were both 18 when we married, far too young and spoiled to be good marriage material, let alone good parent material. By the grace of God, both sets of our parents were outstanding parents and we followed their guidance and leadership, which helped us to be better parents than we should have been at our ages. After the birth of Brian, our first son, a beautiful big baby boy, I was hospitalized with post-partum depression, then PPpsychoses. I was in a private psychiatric facility for 8 months after Brian's birth. During the time of my hospitalization, Brian had surgery for stomach problems at the age of 2.5 weeks; he got his first teeth, he started crawling, babbling - I missed all these things because of my mental health situation. After I was released from the mental health facility, 4 days later I was in ICU with hepatitis I had caught from a blood transfusion; Brian's birth was a very difficult birth and I almost died from hemorrhaging. I spent 8 weeks in the hospital with the hepatitis. During these two months, Brian changed so much again and I wasn't a part of any of it. Hubby was focused on me, and the grandparents were taking care of Brian.
When Brian was 13 months old, I was pregnant again, scared about what might happen, but hopeful. After a traumatic birth that ripped out chunks of my uterus and scarred my cervis so badly there was barely an opening left, our beautiful Andrew died due to the incompetence of the ob/gyn, who was a very respected man in the state. I almost died from hemorrhaging, and I can recall the medical staff doing cpr, my breat bone being cracked from the force of the compression, the doctors screaming at me not to give up. All this time, I didn't know our baby had died. After being released from the hospital after 8 days, I spent a few days at home, then was rehospitalized for 5 more months for post-partum psychoses. If you are not familiar with PPP, do some research and what you find will astound you. After Andrew's birth, I was left unable to have more children. I also didn't realize how close to death I had come with both births, especially the second.
So you see, Della, everyone has a story. I never wanted to raise an only child - I had three older brothers and we were very close and I wanted Brian to have the same, only this choice was taken away from us. Brian has had some issues in dealing with the death of a brother he never knew, one who he was told looked just like him in the newborn baby photo (I could have strangled the person who told Brian this). Because I was in such bad shape physically, I never got to hold our Andrew; I never got to see him. We have his "newborn" picture and that is it. I wasn't allowed to go to his funeral.
I know that our story is no worse than many stories out there of women with stillbirths, etc. The birth experience, for many women, is not the warm, fuzzy, joyful time that it's always pictured to be and many women are left disappointed. And the only reason I shared our story is because I'm not the cold-hearted person people think I am. I deal in reality every single day of my life, whether it's in court suing dead-beat dads or sitting with women in the clinic after they choose to terminate a pregnancy. I live and breathe the lives of these women. True, I've never had an abortion, but I've had the choice of having more children taken away from us.
Sorry to babble like an idiot, but as I said, everyone has a story, some stories worse than others.

You most certainly have NOT offended me. I'm a tough cookie most of the time, except for the end of a certain month which would have been another birthday celebrated in our family. Far from offending me, I find enlightenment in your posts and I learn much from you and the others.

Please remember that I advocate adoption or keeping the child also. Whatever the woman decides, I will support her in that decision. I have no right to make that decision for her, nor do I have any right to coerce her into any decision, just as the anti-choice people have no right to coerce her or bully her into a decision THEY feel comfortable with.

reply from: shiprah

Such as those done in Asian cultures? Did you miss my post that 75% of US children aborted are of girls? Besides, Asian cultures have a realm of philosophies and current sexism levesls are based more on current socio-political realities than deeply entrenched belief in the worthlessness of girls. You also seem unable to grasp that the main reason many pregnancies are unwanted is because of the gender of the baby.

reply from: shiprah

Can you explain how it differs? Its the same belief that one parent has total rights over the life or death of a child without respect to the other parent's wishes.

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, as I said in a post to you in another thread, I see no point to any further "dialogue" between us. You are obviously very passionate about your views, as am I. But I'm here to debate/discuss the issue of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies of women in this country. You seem to feel that because I take a different position on this subject, I am ignorant or stupid or unable to grasp the information that you post. The fact is, unless what you post is from a credible, neutral website, I will ignore it because I have been debating this issue for 25+ years and am used to every single trick used by people like you to pass along incorrect or misleading information to give your "side" an edge. It's unfortunate that you do this because your sources can always be found and revealed for what they are: anti-choice sites that have a very clear agenda.

You posted a bunch of "information" on another thread about pro-choice violence, which I scanned through. When I see that a woman has died because of a botched abortion, my heart falls into the pit of my stomach. But let me remind you of one thing: no physician that provides abortion intends for his patient to die. When this happens, we are all sickened and mourn. There are quacks in every medical field there is and patients are irreperably damaged or die from negligent doctors everyday in this country, not just abortion patients. But for some reason, with you anti-choice persons, it's worse when the death happens at the hands of an abortionist. The reason you cite these statistics and news stories is to add more fuel to the fire, which it does. But again, no abortionist premeditates the death of his patient - the woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy. However, in the anti-choice circles, there have been deaths of women's health providers by premeditated murders, such as that by Eric Robert Rudolph. A "pro-life" person decides to take someone else's life because he disagrees with their beliefs. Just something for you to chew on. But in reality I know you'll ignore the info posted here because it does not fit with your worldview. No biggie. As I said above, I see no reason for further dialogue between us.

reply from: shiprah

Every time a woman dies of a botched abortion its because a) prolifers push for stricter clinic regulations while you guys oppose them and b) prolifers will try to remove the doctor's license so it can't happen again while you guys defend him. If you truly don't want women to die in abortions, stop opposing legislation to make abortion safer.

Secondly, you ignore any evidence you disagree with. My evidence from the National Cancer Institute on the abortion breast cancer link is neutral, yet you still insist I'm trying to mislead you. You accuse me of being closed minded yet you refuse to consider neutral evidence. As far as prochoice violence, among the fatal abortions were prochoice bomb threats and rape. You conveniently ignore this evidence as well. Amazing how you love to discuss the prolife bomber Eric Robert Rudolph and ignore prochoice bomb guys like Frank Mendiola. Perhaps you need to take a good look at the close-mindedness you accuse others of.

reply from: yoda

That's a rather incomplete answer. First of all, your inference that unborn humans are not babies is a shallow, callous attempt to dehumanize human beings, and it's also totally FALSE:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

INTELLIHEALTH:
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|
"Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ Unborn:
Pronunciation: (un-bôrn') -adj. 2. not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb: an unborn baby.

FURTHERMORE

What does not being born have to do with the morality of being killed?

Why is the uterus a "free-kill zone"?

What does "independence" have to do with the moral right to life?

Since when has dependence been deemed so negative a characteristic that it justifies a killing?

reply from: bobinsky

I gave you the answer honestly. If you choose to dismiss it or dislike it, that's your option. If you will notice in the definitions you posted, at least two of them contain the word "fetus" as a definition, so apparently you only have a problem with the word fetus when pro-choice persons use it. You call it a baby, I call it a fetus. Either term is acceptable, as shown by your definitions. I find the anti-choice view of a woman with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy as merely an incubator rather dehumanizing.

In the legal sense, a fetus has no rights under the U.S. Constitution. This is the legalistic answer. And actually, this is really all that matters. Have you read the Constitution? Under this same document, a woman, as a born citizen of this country, has all the rights accorded to her under the Constitution. Check out the Constitution; read it carefully. If you are a citizen of this country, this is the document, along with its BOR, that restrains the government and defines the rights of its citizens.

I take it you're a male. In your case, your penis and testicles are yours and you may do with them what you wish, short of committing a legally defined crime with said parts. If you want to cut them off, no one could rightly stop you nor have you committed a crime. If I or another person walked up to you and attempted to do the same, we would have commited a crime against your person. Or say that I needed a kidney transplant and I decided you're the one whose kidney I wanted. If I cut your kidney out of you, I would be held liable for a serious crime. However, if you choose to donate your kidney, which is part of your body and over which you have total control, then you are free to do so.
In a woman's case, her uterus is hers, whether it is empty or carrying an "unborn baby". If she so chooses to terminate the pregnancy, she may do so because the "unborn baby" is part of her body, contained in her uterus, over which the woman has total control.

See the answers to these questions above. They're basically re-worded versions of your other questions. And I don't see where dependence has any negative connotation at all.

The bottom line in the disagreement between the sides is that terminating a pregnancy is not "murder" or "killing", nor is it defined as such legally. Below are some definitions for you to look over. Since the majority of pregnancies in this country are terminated during the first three months, in some cases, according to the definitions below, what is being aborted is not even a fetus but an embryo.

Definitions of Fetus on the Web:

A developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.
stemcells.nih.gov/info/glossary.asp

An animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth.
www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/genechoice/glossary.html

Term for an unborn baby from the end of the 8th week after conception until birth.
www.bdid.com/termsf.htm

The developing young in the uterus before birth.
www.peteducation.com/dict_alpha_listing.cfm

an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until delivery.
www.health.uab.edu/show.asp

The unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
webhost.sun.ac.za/nicus/glossary/glossaryF-J.htm

The developing offspring from 7 to 8 weeks after conception until birth.
www.stjude.org/glossary

The term used to refer to an unborn child from 8 weeks after fertilization to birth.
www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk2/glossary.htm

(fe·tus) (fe¢t[schwa]s) [L.] the unborn offspring of any viviparous animal; specifically, the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth. Cf. embryo.
www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_f_05zPzhtm

The developing human being from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy to birth.
www.conceptionsrepro.com/content/index.cfm

unborn baby.
www.chkd.org/High_Risk_Pregnancy/glossary.asp

A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term.
www.inciid.org/article.php

The name given to a growing baby after eight weeks of development; before eight weeks, the developing baby is called an embryo.
www.babycentre.co.uk/glossary/F.html

Refers to the unborn baby after 10 weeks of gestation until birth.
www.babynameguide.com/advertise.html

an unborn vertebrate especially after its basic structure is formed
sln.fi.edu/biosci/glossary.html

The stage of human development from 10 weeks' gestation until birth.
www.parenting.com/parenting/pregnancy/glossary/0,20059,F,00.html

Young mammal within the uterus of the mother from the visible completion of characteristic organogenesis until birth: in humans, this period is usually defined as from the third month after fertilisation until birth (prior to this, the young mammal is referred to as an embryo). RT embryo. Oxford English Dictionary, 1991
www.sis.nlm.nih.gov/Glossary/f.html

In mammals, a stage of development in which all organs have formed.
embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/Index/F.htm

The baby in utero, from about the 8th week gestation until birth.
www.med.umich.edu/obgyn/smartmoms/glossary/

The unborn young of an animal while still in the uterus or egg. In humans, the offspring from the third month of pregnancy until birth. b
www.mise.org/mise/index.jsp

The product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery. If the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant [45 CFR 46.203(c)]. The term "fetus" generally refers to later phases of development; the term "embryo" is usually used for earlier phases of development. (See also: Embryo.)
www.clemson.edu/research/orcSite/orcIRB_DefsF.htm

(fe'tus) An infant developing in the uterus, from the third month to birth.
www.coolnurse.com/glossary.htm

The baby in utero, after 8 weeks of pregnancy until delivery. (Before then, it's considered an embryo.) The word fetus means "young one." (Derivative: fetal)
pregnancytoday.com/reference/library/glossary.htm

In medicine, this term is applied to the young of mammals when fully developed in the womb. In human beings, this stage is reached after about 3 months of pregnancy. Prior to this, the developing mammal is at the embryo stage.
www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/hew/tox/glossall.html

Human organism from eight weeks of development until birth.
www.modernhumanorigins.com/f.html

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

A fetus (alternatively foetus or f tus) is an embryo in later stages of development, from the third month of pregnancy until birth in humans. Fetus literally means 'young one'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

reply from: yoda

No kidding? You're abandoning your "One's a baby and one's a fetus" justification? Where does that leave your explanation for why it's morally wrong to kill one and not the other?

Who on this forum has said anything like that, and what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Just throwing in a little acid-tongue editoralizing for the fun of it? Just stereotyping a little bit?

The LAW is "all that to you"? Wow, you would have made a good slave-owner or a good Nazi! Really, have you no moral principles at all, or do you just refuse to discuss morality?

You take it right. And if I ever have a baby in my private parts, you might have a point.

Refusing to answer again? Let me repeat it, because I haven't asked it before and I haven't gotten an answer to it: HOW DOES DEPENDENCE MAKE YOU LESS ENTITLED TO THE MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE IN INNOCENCE???

No, it isn't illegal so it's not technically murder. But not "killing"? And what do you mean "legally defined" as killing??? There is no such thing as a legal definition of "killing". HOW can you look at the photos of the mangled bodies of human fetuses and say the haven't been "KILLED"????

I like these definitions, but I can't for the life of me see what you thought you were proving by posting them. I especially like these, and my favorite are the two that say human embryos are babies too.

Definitions of Fetus on the Web:

Term for an unborn baby from the end of the 8th week after conception until birth.
www.bdid.com/termsf.htm

an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until delivery.
www.health.uab.edu/show.asp

The term used to refer to an unborn child from 8 weeks after fertilization to birth.
www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk2/glossary.htm

unborn baby. www.chkd.org/High_Risk_Pregnancy/glossary.asp A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term. www.inciid.org/article.php

The name given to a growing baby after eight weeks of development; before eight weeks, the developing baby is called an embryo. www.babycentre.co.uk/glossary/F.html

Refers to the unborn baby after 10 weeks of gestation until birth. www.babynameguide.com/advertise.html

The baby in utero, from about the 8th week gestation until birth.
www.med.umich.edu/obgyn/smartmoms/glossary/

(fe'tus) An infant developing in the uterus, from the third month to birth.
www.coolnurse.com/glossary.htm

reply from: bobinsky

I have already explained numerous times on this board, to you and to others, the pro-choice stance on terminating a pregnancy. If by now you have not grasped the gist of the position, I see no reason in repeating the same things. If terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong, in your eyes, as it seems to be, then I suggest you do not terminate any pregnancy of yours. But you have no right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This is the poinnt you seem to be unwilling to admit. But the bottom line is that what women do with their bodies, pregnant or not, is none of your business; what you do with YOUR body is none of their business. What pregnant women do with their bodies is none of MY business until they come to me for help.

When you tell a woman who is facing an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy that she MUST continue with her pregnancy because to do otherwise is morally wrong - in your eyes - then she becomes nothing but a womb. When you telll a woman that her situation, her story, her problems are unimportant and matter less than a fetus, sorry, unborn baby, then you are telling her SHE is worth less than a fetus and her only point in life is to carry the fetus to term. As far as editorializing and stereotyping, I suggest you call some of your fellow posters on this same thing. Until you do, it seems to be only an issue if I do it. And you also do a lot of stereotyping of your own, so pot = kettle = black. Check your own attitude.

Oh, I see you're stereotyping her and attempting to compare apples to oranges. I would have thought this sort of rhetoric beneath you, yoda, but obviously it's not.
The law is what drives this country; it sets the acceptable boundaries and limits of its citizens, some of who don't have a problem with laws and some who do. That's life. To compare a pro-choice person to a slave owner or a Nazi is a very desperate attempt on your part to confuse the issue and deserves no response.
Morality is relative in many instances. I think it is immoral to force a woman to carry an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy to term UNLESS she chooses to do so. Whatever her choice, I will support it. Because you believe something is immoral does not make it so, yoda. Again, I see anti-choice persons play the morally superior card here on this forum, when I've seen and read of instances by the posters here where they didn't act so morally superior at one time or another.

Did you take biology in school? Did you study reproduction and pregnancy? Are you aware that without the mother's blood, oxygen and nourishment, the fetus will not survive? Therefore, the fetus is reliant upon the woman for life because it is tethered to her body. This is a fact of nature, of physiology, of biology. Because it is not an independent entity, it has no rights. After the child is birthed, it is an independent entity - to a degree - and is entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. As I said above, yoda, morality in many instances in relative. That the majority of persons in this country support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy throughout the third month tells me something about your "morality".

I can look at pictures of children who have been born, who've lived short lives and have been brutally butchered by their supposedly loving parents. These children have been killed, they have been murdered and I reserve my rage for these children who knew the physical and emotional trauma of being slaughtered. Until a certain point, a fetus does not have a working brain or a developed nervous system, therefore it cannot feel pain or experience emotional trauma. I have finally figured out that this is an anti-abortion board rather than a pro-life board, because all of the energy and dialogue on this board goes toward saving and mourning a fetus.

I edited this post three times because I kept hitting the "reply" button instead of the "quote' button. I just might get the hang of it yet.

reply from: yoda

No you haven't. Your "attempt" to answer the question simply said that one was a fetus and the other was a baby. Now that you've abandoned that charade, what's your real moral reason for justifying your diapproval of killing born babies but not unborn ones? Are you stumped?

Put a hat on that STRAWMAN! Show me where I've suggested anything of the kind! No, you just want to repeat your stereotyping, overly broad criticisms of Pro-Lifers as a substitute for a genuine answer to my questions.

reply from: yoda

No you haven't. Your "attempt" to answer the question simply said that one was a fetus and the other was a baby. Now that you've abandoned that charade, what's your real moral reason for justifying your diapproval of killing born babies but not unborn ones? Are you stumped?

Put a hat on that STRAWMAN! Show me where I've suggested anything of the kind! No, you just want to repeat your stereotyping, overly broad criticisms of Pro-Lifers as a substitute for a genuine answer to my questions.

reply from: bobinsky

Yoda, you are the one who believes abortion is a moral issue; I do not agree it is a moral issue. Therefore, no matter what I say will not be acceptable to you because I see the situation in an entirely different light. You go ahead and beat your morality drum. No problem. But do not attempt to corner me into believing as you do about the morality of terminating a pregnancy and attempting to paint me as immoral because I do not believe as you do.
Am I stumped? To a point, yes, but not in the way you think. I am frustrated that there cannot be a truthful dialogue here. I readily accept your beliefs and opinions and have no problem with your concerns about abortion. You, on the other hand, want to hold yourself morally superior to me because I don't share you beliefs about abortion. You obviously read my posts, but you don't listen, you have no intention of hearing anything besides what you want to believe. Okay. But then let's cut the crap and stop trying to "discuss" or "debate" because it's not happening, nor will it happen. That's okay.
Amber and I happen to be able to discuss/debate the issue because she is coming at the pro-life stance from a Christian point of view. She wants to listen to what people have to say, she wants to understand where they're coming from; I give her the exact same courtesty. Only then can she adequately address what she feels is important to her concerning the issue. I value her input, her knowledge and her friendship. After spending time "arguing" the abortion issue with Amber, I come away from the encounter having learned much and wanting to learn more from persons such as her. As a Christian, I know that Amber finds abortion reprehensible, but she has the ability to put aside her emotions for a while and listen, while not judging the speaker. Why she can do this while you and others are unable to is what stumps me. Perhaps it is her youth that makes her more hopeful or caring. I don't know.

Yoda, I answer every question put to me honestly and in good conscience. And as you can readily see, I put a lot of thought and effort and time into responding to people's posts to me. Then you come along, pick half a sentence or a few word out of my posts and make accusations and assumptions about me and my beliefs. This does neither of us any good. If I understand your position, you would like women to choose NOT to abort their pregnancies. If they came to you saying that they've decided to abort the pregnancy, what would you say to them? Would you tell them you support their decision and will be available to them at any time to help them? Or would you tell them that what they are doing is wrong and immoral and attempt to change their minds? And if they didn't change their minds after listening to what you had to say - about abortion being immoral, blah, blah, blah - and went ahead with the abortion, what would you say to them? It's time to turn the tables a little bit and see if you actually put your money where your mouth is. I know I do. Let's see what you do.

And let me suggest, Yoda, that you take a really good look at what you post and what you say about those that disagree with you and see that you are stereotyping also. Is it the board's policy that stereotyping is acceptable for one group and not the other?

reply from: yoda

I'll give you this, you're as good a dodger and evader of the issues I raise in my questions as anyone I've ever debated. This point here, is a perfect example. You admit that killing born babies IS a moral question, but then you turn around and say killing an unborn baby is not, but you will not give your reasons for that statement. And then you go into a diatribe of personal stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with my question or the point I raised. Great performance!

I would ask them the same questions I'm asking you.

Nothing, probably. Why talk to someone who won't listen?

Pardon my French, but what the h*ll is that supposed to mean?

If you're asking for the policies of this board, ask Terry, he works here.

reply from: bobinsky

Well, let's see yoda, you don't like any answer I give you, so it's beginning to dawn on me that YOU are the one with the problem, not me. I've given the reasons for my statement, but you don't like them. C'est la vie. I don't make my decisions based on your definition of morality. Herein lies the difference. I wish I could give you kudos for a great performance, but you are like many other anti-choice persons who don't listen to anything they don't want to hear.

How do you know she wasn't listening; perhaps she disagrees with you. If she were alone and asked you to go with her to the clinic, would you go and make sure everything turned out safely for her?

I don't have a problem with your French. What it means is that you cry all over the board about caring about the women and the fetus. If the woman wants to continue with the abortion and asked for your help, would you help her or send her on her way? Judging from what you said about your concern for the pregnant women, there would be really no way for you to turn away from helping her.

Yeah, well, I don't see Terry all over the board promoting double-standards, the way you do. That's why I asked you.

edited again because i hit the reply button too soon

reply from: terry

If you're asking for the policies of this board, ask Terry, he works here.

No, I'm an equal-opportunity stereotyper -- as long as your not crossing the line into what a reasonable person would consider racist, both of you should feel free to stereotype away!

reply from: yoda

You have DISAVOWED the ONLY answer you gave me, which was "BECAUSE ONE IS A BABY AND ONE IS A FETUS"............ so now I'm supposed to be satisfied with THAT answer??? Typical proabort response.

That would amount to encouraging, aiding and abetting in the killing of an inocent human being. So my answer is not "no", it's HELL NO!

reply from: bobinsky

I have disavowed nothing. You do not like the answers given, so you take the usual anti-choice tactic. I don't have a problem with this. It's your game. You don't like the legal answers, the moral answers - there's nothing left to give you.

So then your "concern" and "caring" for the woman only extends to the point where she agrees with your views, otherwise to hell with her? I understand now. Well, actually, I understood before. Just wanted to verify how much you care about the woman.

reply from: yoda

An honest answer from you would have been "I don't have an ANSWER for this". You have no answer as to why it's not a moral issue to kill a baby five minutes before delivery, but then becomes one five minutes later. You have no answer, so you hide behind your right to refuse to answer. So be it.

reply from: ValPak

I have observed you are frequently less than polite. Do you think otherwise?

reply from: cali2345

Hi there everyone. I realize this is a fairly old thread, but since it’s been resurrected I read through it – and I think I followed everything pretty well. Except, Bobinsky, I have some questions for you. There were a few things you said that didn’t get explained and I am confused as to your position. Would you mind clarifying these five points for me?

(1)

I am mystified by the phrase “terminate a pregnancy” and am wondering where you got that from. Nobody on this board ever used that phrase, so of course they could not have said that a woman couldn’t terminate a pregnancy. All pregnancies terminate. The only question is whether they terminate with a live baby or a dead one. So, no one is trying to tell women they can’t terminate their pregnancies – that would be ridiculous and an impossible order.

(2)

I obviously don’t claim to be familiar with all your views, but I think that it would be reasonable to suspect that this statement is inconsistent with other views that you may hold. For example, do you believe that we (or the government) has the right to tell men that they cannot rape women? If your answer is yes, that is inconsistent with your quote there, because that’s telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. There are also plenty of other laws that restrict what people can and cannot do with their own bodies – for example, sell themselves as prostitutes, sell their organs for transplants, put certain drugs in their bodies, etc. Are you hands-off about everything that involves someone’s “own body”?

(3)

First of all, I’m mystified as to where anyone on this board said that any woman’s “situation, story, problems” were “unimportant.” I don’t think that anyone said that. If I missed it, of course, please point it out and correct me. But if I’m correct, consider this. What if a woman with a one-year-old child told you her “situation, her story, her problems,” and said that her life would be so much easier if she didn’t have this child to contend with? Would you support her choice to kill that child? If you didn’t support it, would that be the same as telling her that SHE is worth less than the child?

(4)

Actually, I see a significant comparison here that you did not address. At one point slave-owning and Nazism were well within the limits of established law, just as abortion is now. These practices were considered within the “acceptable boundaries and limits” of the countries’ citizens. Do you think that people should always accept the law, no matter what it is? Should no one have challenged the practices of slave-owning and Nazism because they were “the law” and “that’s life”?

(5)

Actually, nobody has a fully developed brain OR nervous system until years after birth. Development is a continuous process. Anyway, first of all, you say that “these children have been killed, they have been murdered” – do you claim that a fetus has NOT been killed when a woman has an abortion? And second of all, in your eyes, is killing any less killing if the one who lost his/her life does not feel “physical and emotional trauma”? Would it be acceptable for those same parents to kill their children if they first knocked them unconscious, then butchered them, so they were unaware of any kind of pain as they died?

I see some gaps in the exchanges that happened on this thread and if you don’t mind, even though it’s a couple months old, I’d be interested in your responses. Thanks.

reply from: ChristianLott

I have observed you are frequently less than polite. Do you think otherwise?

Well, I don't feed the animals, if that's what you're getting at.

BTW Cali, excellent post and questions. I'm sure Ms Bobinsky will get you those answers right away. She may even thank you for your patience and thoroughness!

reply from: bobinsky

Neither do I, Lott, so there's really no reason for me to answer Cali's questions, now is there?

reply from: ChristianLott

Wrong.

By 'feeding the animals' I'm talking about seeking out and harassing people and calling them names without provocation, attempting to intimidate and belittle others, etc etc.

Cali asked some great question. They are honest and logical questions which deserve an honest, thought out, logical response.

He even gave you some hints for the answers.

Once again, you prove that you're not here to have an honest debate, but rely on our good will and patience - responding with little thought or effort to any meaningful question.

Yeah, I'd like to see you try to answer those questions.

You keep telling us morals are nothing more than 'opinions'. Plainly this is as far as your intellect will carry you because you have no morals, merely a bunch of ill thought out opinions.

Here is a clue: The only way a society can function is by adhering to a moral code. The morality is encoded into the law. Allowing some the 'right' to murder is the antithesis of civilization. Therefore it is immoral, even if allowed by law.

reply from: Skippy

Didn't cali say in another thread that morality is highly relative? That doesn't exactly jibe with your belief that morals are absolute, and your belief that morals are whatever your god says they are.

reply from: bobinsky

No, cali, you are not "confused" by my position. I've made my position abundantly clear on this forum and if you can't figure out where I stand by now concerning abortion, that's your problem, not mine.

OH, right, CL, like you referring to those who disagree with you murderers, butchers, condemning them to hell - this sort of thing. I don't see where anyone on this thread has harassed you and called you names. Valpak said to you, "I have observed you are frequently less than polite. Do you think otherwise?" This is harassing and belittling? Hmmmm . . .

reply from: cali2345

I certainly do understand that your position is that you support abortion, but I *am* actually quite confused as to how you came to that position. That's why I made that post detailing the five points that confused me. You used each one of those points to help explain why you support abortion, but each one seemed self-contradictory to me without explanation from you. I don't believe that anything you've said so far on this forum clears up the questions I asked, and that's why I brought them up. Would you clear up my confusion?

reply from: cali2345

I did. Morality IS highly relative. But that doesn't mean that one individual's or one society's morality can be logically inconsistent with itself.

That's why I'm very interested to hear Ms. Bobinsky's response to my five questions, because if she doesn't have answers, I don't see reason to view her position on abortion as anything but self-contradictory.

reply from: bobinsky

Then you understand all you need to know. If you look through the posts on this board, you'll see that any pro-choicer who has come to this forum has answered these same questions again and again, and yet you anti-choicers keep asking them, pretending you don't "understand". I'd say if you don't understand the answers by now, it's your problem, not mine or any other pro-choicer's.

This statement makes no sense.

reply from: cali2345

It is ludicrous to suggest that any of us "understand all we need to know" just by knowing that you support abortion. We all knew that from the outset. The purpose of these forums is for each of us to discuss WHY we do or don't support it. Everyone knows that supporters of abortion exist. Why are you here if all you wanted to do was tell us that you support it, and not explain WHY you support it?

Also, no pro-choicer on here has answered any of the questions that I asked you in those five points - for example, my question of, "Are you hands-off about everything that involves someone’s 'own body'?" And anyway, it wouldn't MATTER if another pro-choicer had answered that, because I directed it to you; I'm interested in your answer. After all, you were the one who said that you support abortion because people have no right to tell women what they can and can't do with their "own bodies." I'm asking for clarification on that point because I don't understand how that's a reason for supporting abortion.

Most of my questions require "yes" or "no" answers. It shouldn't take that long for you to go through those five things and answer - and it is not superfluous for me to ask for the answers, since clarification is needed on the reasons you gave for your positions.

reply from: Amy

Then you understand all you need to know."

In that case Bob...you've done your job and it's time to move on. You've nothing more to offer, not that what you have offered has proven meaningful, so you may as well take your show on the road and not explain your position to another group of people you can leave no discernible impact on.

This statement makes no sense.

Read it slower Bob.

reply from: Della22

Wonderful questions, cali! I HAVE asked her some of these questions and I did not get a proper response either. It's when they don't reply that we know prochoicers don't have an answer. They cannot justify their stance so they result to answering questions like "Why are you prochoice?" with answers like "I just do."

Really, Bobinsky! I am surprised. Someone has asked YOU something and you didn't whip up some lame legal garbage. Cali must have asked in an intimidating manner to you. Way to go cali. I AM impressed!

reply from: yoda

The problem in your conclusion is that you are arbitrarily and incorrectly limiting the word "morality" to a single definition. Like most words in our language, it has several. It can refer to both individual ("highly relative") and collective (the majority opinion of a society) morality, and even to absolute (spiritual) morality.

Certainly each of us must have our own opinions of what is and what isn't moral, but that in itself does not in any way negate the concept of collective or absolute morality.

reply from: bobinsky

If any of you anti-choicers would extend yourselves a little bit and read some previous posts, you WOULD see that these same questions have been asked repreatedly by the AC's and have been answered repeatedly by the pro-choicers. The only issue is, you AC's don't like or accept the answers, perched up there on your moral high ground and insisting that your answers are the only acceptable responses.
As far as legal answers, the law means nothing to anti-choicers except when it furthers your agenda by promothing your morality, so legalities mean nothing to you as can be radily seen by your reference to "legal garbage". Thanks but no thanks.

edited to add:
Della, I also took a good piece of advice from a person I consider a master at debating on these forums. He advised to debate those who want to debate and ignore the rest, no matter what their tactics. I intend to follow his direction.

edited again for stupid spelling error

reply from: bobinsky

What is the collective morality of a society does not agree with the absolute morality, or what you anti-choicers view as absolute morality? And why does "spiritual" make morality "absolute"?

reply from: cali2345

Thanks!

It's interesting that Ms. Bobinsky continues to claim that she's answered my questions before, yet never does so much as mention the place where she's answered them. That wouldn't be very difficult to do.

I still don't have answers to accept or not accept, at least not on the five points that I mentioned. And I never claimed that my position was morally superior to yours (in fact, I've never really used the word "morality" in reference to abortion; I've only said that morality itself is relative), I merely implied by my questions that my position is internally consistent and yours is not. And, personally, I'm much more comfortable subscribing to a belief system that is internally consistent than I am subscribing to one that is not. An internally inconsistent belief system is no belief system at all; it's like telling someone that they can't cut down bushes because they're green, then saying that they can cut down grass even though it too is green. Ridiculous and meaningless justification, and suddenly your position is moot.

I've searched this forum pretty thoroughly and I have found places where you've been asked similar questions to the ones I asked you, but no place where you've answered them. I'm still waiting. I have yet to meet a pro-choicer whose belief system is internally consistent, but you have the chance to prove me wrong. If your position is in fact defensible, you'll be able to do that, no problem. So go ahead!

reply from: sarah

Wow. Bobbysue, you have elevated "dodge ball" to an olympic event.

reply from: yoda

I assume you meant "what if"....... but the question is still rhetorical. We anti-abortionists (that's the exact same thing as an "anti-choicer") do not speak with one voice, or hold a single opinion. We are individuals, as much as you try to stereotype us all into a box.

If God is to be assumed to hold absolute moral standards, and God is spiritual, that means that spiritual morality is absolute.

reply from: yoda

Don't hold your breath. We've grown used to the "fun and games" bob plays.

reply from: cali2345

Yes, I'm fairly confident that I won't be getting a defense of an indefensible position. ;-)

reply from: bobinsky

Yes, I meant if. Here's my point: the "collective morality" in this country believes that abortion should remain legal, with some or without any limitations (I believe Skippy posted a link to this previously). This would "trump" - in terms of majority - the absolute morality that you "defined".

And if one does not believe in god, then absolute morality, as you defined it, is moot. It would be for you, too, since you're a non-believer. There would be no "absolute morality" in non-Christian countries.

There are many things that are spiritual besides god. What about the moral standards of these non-Christian spiritual things?

reply from: yoda

In an "earthly" legal sense, yes. Is that your highest concern?

The thing is, the concept of God is one thing, a real God is quite another. A real God is not changed by whether we believe in Him or not, or whether we consider absolute morality "moot". To a real God, all our attitudes and/or beliefs that are in error are "moot".

reply from: cali2345

It is not meaningful to talk about abortion as a legal issue in terms of morality. The law doesn't operate in terms of morality.

Each individual, of course, can talk about abortion in any way they want as long as it's consistent with their personal overarching belief system.

I have yet to meet a prochoicer who can talk about abortion in such a way.

reply from: bobinsky

No, my issue was what happens when the collective morality - the people - override your absolute morality? What happens then? And again, what about non-Christian countries and absolute morality? Can these two co-exist?

Well, there either is or isn't a "real" god. One of the quantifiers in your earlier post was absolute morality, which you defined as spiritually-connected, then further defined as God making spiritual morality absolute. Would this be the "concept" of God or the "real" God that you're speaking of?

edited for not finishing first paragraph

reply from: yoda

The very mention of the word morality gives them the hives, cali. They despise the concept.

reply from: cali2345

I think they despise the concept of logical consistency just as much.

I can understand differing views on morality, but either something is logically consistent or it isn't. There's no room for agreeing to disagree on that one.

reply from: yoda

Your term "your absolute morality" is puzzling to me. Absolute morality (that held by a supreme being) does not belong to any of us. Now, if you mean "my individual morality", then that's simply a question of how important morality is to the individual. For myself, my individual morality holds much more importance than any collective morality, and I will follow it always.

The real one. Our concepts are nothing more than opinion.

reply from: Tam

YES! Wow--welcome to the forum cali!! I, too, would love to see Bob answer those questions--but it isn't going to happen in our lifetime, I don't think, and I gave up trying to get a logically consistent response out of her weeks ago. Well, welcome, welcome!!!

reply from: cali2345

YES! Wow--welcome to the forum cali!! I, too, would love to see Bob answer those questions--but it isn't going to happen in our lifetime, I don't think, and I gave up trying to get a logically consistent response out of her weeks ago. Well, welcome, welcome!!!

Thanks. I've enjoyed being here.

Bob, in my opinion, is the quintessential pro-choicer - can't defend her position in a logically consistent manner, so simply dismisses or ignores any questions designed to point out said inconsistency. She and other pro-choicers know that if their position isn't logically consistent, it is meaningless. But they attempt to place the blame for their inconsistency on us by claiming to have answered our questions already - even though they haven't, and even thoughit's obvious that someone with a logically consistent position wouldn't mind repeating answers to someone who didn't hear them the first time.

She hasn't answered the five clear and detailed questions I posed to her, none of her fellow pro-choicers have jumped in to answer them for her, and no one at all has linked me up to her supposed "previous answers" to my questions. The only response I've gotten is an admonishment that she doesn't have to defend her position to me, and that if I simply understand that she supports abortion, that's enough. (I'm not sure why anyone would be on a forum like this if they refused to explain or defend their position, and merely wanted to tell the opposing side that they disagree - without giving any argument as to why.) My only option is to conclude that she has no answers to my questions - and, therefore, that her position is logically inconsistent.

reply from: bobinsky

I referred to "your absolutely morality" as such because you rather defined "absolute morality" as spiritual/godly, meaning this is your concept of absolute morality. What if your individual morality, for whatever issue, is different from the absolute morality you defined?

And you'll agree that we pro-choicers do not speak with one voice or hold a single opinion? I see your point, though, about "stereotyping" all anti-choicers into one box, since there are some disagreements among anti-choicers as to different issues in the abortion matter.

reply from: cali2345

Yup, just as I predicted Tam.

reply from: Tam

Yup, you've got her number, all right. You know what's REALLY funny? Once she and Dmourning tried to say I was dodging some question of theirs. As it turned out, the issue was raised in a thread I hadn't bothered to read, so I hadn't even seen it. Furthermore, there weren't really any questions, just a bunch of blah blah and then "right, Tam?" So I explained that I'm more than willing to answer questions, that I'm certainly not shy about sharing my opinion, but that I failed to see an actual question, so please ask one and I'll answer. I even tried to come up with some questions I thought they might be trying to ask!! I'll find it, it's funny.

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=405&highlight_key=y&keyword1=bush

It's funny when you try to supply possible answers to them, too. They won't like any of the answers but will still insist they've already answered with an answer that makes it all make sense, but be too busy to link to that alleged response....LOL

reply from: yoda

Indeed. Thank goodness for individuality.

reply from: cali2345

HAHA! That's hilarious. They go on and on about you avoiding a question, yet they never asked you one - and were never sure that you were reading the thread at all!

I was also interested to see the posts of Dmourning who has apparently left (or been reincarnated) since then. I especially love the little signature. "Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." -American Cancer Society That is such a dishonest statement and I can't believe that anybody would buy into it. NO medical study in the world is going to find ANY kind of a cause-and-effect relationship! Because in order to find that, you have to use a direct experimental method. In other words, randomly select a group of women and randomly divide them into two categories, force some to have abortions and some not to, and then see which (if either) group gets breast cancer. That would be the ONLY way to conclude that there is or is not a cause-and-effect relationship. And that kind of a study would never be considered ethical - so the only thing people can do is show correlations over and over in different kinds of situations, and try to control for intervening influences as best they can. And that's precisely what has been done.

reply from: yoda

Well, to put it charitably, what other ammunition do they have?

reply from: cali2345

Exactly. Just like they use tons of invalid comparisons because they have no valid ones at their disposal. Fallacious rhetoric is the only ammunition of a person whose position is logically indefensible.

reply from: Tam

Wow--very good points. VERY good. Especially the bit I've bolded above.

reply from: cali2345

Thank you.

Although I must say, I'm getting tired of making "VERY good points" that prochoicers ignore instead of acknowledging.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, it was pretty funny. Another good bit in that thread was where Dmourning threatened yoda, but then he went back and deleted it later so it's not there for you to see. As for his being reincarnated--well, who knows, and really, who cares. I thought Skippy must be D because "she" showed up right after he left, believed everything he believes, and dodges rational debate like a pro. But I think she's a bit smarter than D, so maybe she's really a unique individual. Valfar is the name of one of Dmourning's favorite albums, so I'm pretty sure that our "valfar" clown is just the Dmourning clown returned. But the only real reason I care is that I'd cut valfar a LOT more slack if I thought he were a genuine newbie than I'd cut him thinking he's just D coming back for more. D tended to have a pattern--drop a bunch of balls, then leave, then come back when those threads had conveniently dropped away over time, only to drop some more balls, leave again, etc. When he first came back, I assumed he wanted to be here and would try to answer some of the questions he left on the table. LOL How silly of me! Of course, valfar could prove he's not D by simply answering rationally a few questions D left unanswered. But, of course, even if he's not D, I doubt he'll be able to answer them. tsk, tsk.

reply from: Della22

Everytime I get called an anti-choicer by some Proabort I have to laugh! If my not believing ONE of the legal options should even BE a choice makes me anti-choice so be it. But Don't get defensive when I call you a proabort. Afterall, you are for maintaining abortion as a legal option. It doesn't make you "prochoice." If you were "prochoice" you'd be FOR (which is what 'pro' means) the CHOICE of everyone. If abortion were illegal would you still call yourself prochoice?

Pat answers are so boring. If you're going to spew the same tired BS I'm not even going to read it. I have better things to do with my time. Besides, I have already read it before.

As for your not answering Cali's questions, you are just dodging. You keep lying and saying you've given straight out answers to these questions. Obviously if you can remember replying to these same questions, it shouldn't be hard for you to whip up some more answers now would it? Instead you continue to plead "But I already answered this." If it's so difficult for you to write an answer to something when you're on here just about everyday, why are you even here?

You DEBATE us?! HA HA HA HA!!!! You pound the h*ll out of meaningless dog crap. Don't give me anymore justifications. I'd like to know how you REALLY feel and not what helps you sleep at night.

reply from: yoda

Della, put yourself in the "shoes" of a proabort for a moment. You're here debating because some people want to restrict a woman's right to remove what to you is nothing more than a tumor, and you're highly indignant that anyone could be so "intrusive". How else could you respond to them, but rudely?

reply from: ValPak

Do you EVER add anything intelligent here?

reply from: sarah

Do you EVER add anything intelligent here?

How long have you been here? Not very long...so cut the drama and stick to the issues. You're making an idiot of yourself with these kinds of posts.

reply from: ValPak

Do you EVER add anything intelligent here?

How long have you been here? Not very long...so cut the drama and stick to the issues. You're making an idiot of yourself with these kinds of posts.

What difference does it make how long I have been here? Do you get to tell me what to do or say because you were here first?

And besides, I was not talking to you. Stick to YOUR issues

reply from: sarah

Hey Val, this is a PUBLIC forum. I can reply to any post. If YOU don't like it, well you know what you can do. Or do you need directions?
It's just that usually normal people take sometime to get to know other posters before they act the jerk. But, hey your personality must be that you're that way right out of the gate.

reply from: Della22

Do you EVER add anything intelligent here?

How long have you been here? Not very long...so cut the drama and stick to the issues. You're making an idiot of yourself with these kinds of posts.

What difference does it make how long I have been here? Do you get to tell me what to do or say because you were here first?

And besides, I was not talking to you. Stick to YOUR issues

Sarah meant that you are not an expert on what ANYONE contributes to the discussion. And I quite agree. You add nothing but negative insults to people's posts. Why are you even here? It's certainly not to debate. Do you think you're going to change ANYONE's mind by saying negative things or make anyone see your side of the argument by putting someone down? If you do think so, you're more ignorant than I thought. In which case you should cut us ALL some slack and leave. It's an insult to your own kind and an annoyance to our kind.

reply from: ValPak

della, why are you even here? It's certainly not to debate. Do you think you're going to change ANYONE's mind by making fallacious comments or make anyone see your side of the argument by stating your own personal moral views? If you do think so, you're more ignorant than I thought. In which case you should cut us ALL some slack and leave. It's an insult to your own kind and an annoyance to our kind.

reply from: Amy

LOL...holy smokes!!! Are you like ten?

reply from: yoda

How would YOU recognize it?

reply from: sarah

LOL...holy smokes!!! Are you like ten?

I'm not sure, but that may be an insult to 10 year olds everywhere! LOL!!

reply from: cali2345

Took the words right out of my mouth.

reply from: Tam

Uh...

Ok, I must admit: I was really annoyed when "valfar" made that crack about "you must be psychotic because you obviously have me confused with someone else" when I knew darn well it was Dmourning. But my being annoyed is no excuse for my being mean, and what I wrote above was just mean. I know you probably didn't expect to be welcomed back with open arms, D, but you didn't deserve the above. For the record, I didn't even really mean all of it, and I am sorry.

Tam

reply from: Amy

LOL...holy smokes!!! Are you like ten?

I'm not sure, but that may be an insult to 10 year olds everywhere! LOL!!

Oh shoot, you're right. Sorry.

Amy <---hangs her head in shame.

reply from: Tam

Gee, Bobinsky, if you had already been on this forum for several long, long, long (well, to US, anyway) weeks, why did you say THIS

about this site on June 26th?

Of course, considering some of the other nonsense and lies you have posted RIGHT HERE, I am not THAT surprised. Disgusted, yes.

P.S. I also really like this gem:

Hey, here's an idea--if you think this site should be closed down, why don't you just the heck LEAVE? I think everyone would be happier that way--including you! You hate it here and you have nothing constructive whatsoever to offer, so if you're only here to attack the posters and the forum here and elsewhere, why bother?

reply from: yoda

Just you wait until she graduates from 7th grade, Tam, then she'll show us!

reply from: sarah

Well, well... it seems bobbysue has no end of idenities! And where is "Skippy" all of a sudden, I'm wondering?

Those are the rantings and "doings" of a troubled mind, IMO. She can't have her ideals as herself stand up under scrutiny so she makes up imaginary ones...how pathetic can you get? She can't find any of her own help so she makes it up!! It would be funny, if others weren't hurt in the process.

And exactly how many "scenarios" of rape can one board be suddenly getting?

reply from: yoda

Odd, isn't it? There must be a crime wave going on we don't know about.

reply from: sarah

There sure must be, Yoda! This is getting ridiculous.

Maybe the "perp" here will finally get it that we're not falling into their traps so easily and they'll move on to some other tangent.


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