Originally posted by Vagabond:
You may disagree, but again, that is your right. Further, you may want to try to look at the issue from a female point of view, rather than from the point-of-view of one with a penis.
Trust me, I've analyzed this point to death from every possible angle.... what it comes down to is this:
Abortion practiced as a form of birth control is one of the many forms of murder.
If someone is willing to engage in an Adult activity, then they should take the Adult's responsibilty that goes along with it. Bar None.
the13thjedi
Well 13th, we are just going to have to disagree. It all comes down to having control over your own body. I'm very socially liberal, so I'm all for:
* Self-Assisted Suicide
* Right to Choose Abortion
* Right to be Homosexual without fear of discrimination
* Right to burn the American flag in protest
Morality is subjective to one's personal viewpoint, and once you see this truth, you will realize the inherant danger of holding others' up to your own personal standard of right and wrong. Our nation uses Democracy is its method of wading through these muddy waters, and while imperfect is a better method than most. Our nation is one of the freest in the world. Once you start stripping people of their freedoms, you begin sliding down the slippery slope to totalitarian rule, whether you like it or not.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
One more thing, 13th. Let me caution you to not take a holier-than-thou stance. Once you place yourself above others, you take on a self-righteous frame of mind, which blinds you to your own Humanity. We are all imperfect and no one should expect us to be.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
A good lesson to be learned Vagabond, however, we urge you not to forget to heed your own advice. ; )
When it comes to items merely of economic or political difference, or cultural or ethnic debate, or even religious discussion, sure, it's all well and good to take a "relativist" standpoint and say "all things are equal, each to his own viewpoint, all are correct."
However, no matter what, even when we say this very thing, we are making a judgement as to the correctness of our ideas and the wrongness of certain others (any that may disagree).
Yes, it is good that we can disagree. However, I think some are of the opinion that in a "Democracy" (even a limited one, such as ours), those in the minority, or those with unpopular opinions should not complain or disagree openly (or too loudly) with what the establishment has decreed.
The wonderful thing about freedom is that yes, it costs eternal vigilance, but it also is neverending. Our freedom didn't stop with the founding father's, and it hasn't stopped today either.
I get mad when some folks (especially in the media or on certain political publications) seem to imply that while it was okay to protest and get mad at the government in the 60's and early 70's, it's somehow wrong to disagree nowadays. They act like there are no more problems, no more predjudices, etc.
Surely these people are naive at best.
Some old problems have been corrected, some merely ignored, some partially solved, but many new ones exist. And some of the oldest problems still remain unsolved.
I guess my point Vagabond (and others) is that I realize we all have different personal beliefs that shape how we view the world. Some folks believe politics should be left to politicians. I disagree.. I think free discussion is good, even if we don't convert anyone to our viewpoint. At least we know where we stand on important issues.
When it comes to human lives, I think a relativist standpoint is a dangerous, and slippery slope, and I do not support that kind of thinking at all.
On the topic of homosexuality (a pet favorite of debate among liberals and conservatives), it remains to be seen (as per our previous debates on this topic) whether or not homosexuality is an inborn, or socially/culturally/etc created condition. Thus, I do not have a hard stance on whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" or "neutral." However, it is legal, in most places to BE a homosexual, and I do not believe that these folks should be treated any less than other human beings.
As to flag burning, I think it's a disgrace (reminds me of those anti-american demonstrations they have in other countries), but I don't think we should be throwing people in jail for burning a piece of cloth that they paid for. It just isn't that important. It's more important we protect human lives.
Human lives I place above freedom. If we can't live, we can't be free. Once we are allowed to live, then we can enjoy freedom.
To me, freedom is more than a piece of paper that says I can do this or that, or some arbitrary decision of some faceless group of leaders. It's something inherent in a human person, and thus is inalienable.
Now exactly what "freedom" really entails and how far it goes, that's something that's been debated for millenia. The ancient Greeks tended to think it only applied to freeborn males. The Founding Fathers tending to think it only applied to land-owning white men.
The details of what freedom entails is up to debate, but I would say it applies to all of our species, and we must be very very careful when we start saying who should and who shouldn't be denied this freedom.
Good comments people... the only thing I dislike about these discussions is how we seem to never be able to stay on topic for long (even I find it hard). Oh well. ; )
Kurgan
Kurgan,
...Human lives I place above freedom. If we can't live, we can't be free. Once we are allowed to live, then we can enjoy freedom...
Can you see where herein lies the paradox? If the unwanted child is forced upon the unwilling mother, then she is no longer free, and so to live does not nececitate freedom. Same goes with prohibiting flag burning. The flag represents freedom, but to take away the freedom to burn the flag takes away the very freedom that it stands for. We must be free to make our mistakes, to exercise our freedoms, otherwise there is no freedom to enjoy.
I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentleman of the Jedi Knight Council, Kurgan
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Originally posted by Vagabond:
One more thing, 13th. Let me caution you to not take a holier-than-thou stance. Once you place yourself above others, you take on a self-righteous frame of mind, which blinds you to your own Humanity. We are all imperfect and no one should expect us to be.
Vagabond,
I am sorry if you recieved the wrong impression as to my stance...
The truth of the matter is this:
Yes, I do disagree with you & probably always will...
But, I never claimed to, in any way shape or form, be "holier" than anyone. Sure, we have been going at it tooth-and-nail, But throughout all I have not in any way claimed that I was superior to anyone. And Yes, I do consider your statement offensive, and also hypocritical, to certain lengths.
I do not have anything against you, but when you point the finger at me for something you yourself are doing, I will take offense.
I realize that you do have your opinions, and that is something I have to respect. But this is a debate about abortion, not about my character as a human being. So if you please, hold your comments on me until you know me better... Which, in all likelyhood, will not occur past this forum.
the13thjedi,
13th,
I wasn't accusing you. Sometimes it seems like the debate starts heading that way, so I wanted to caution both you and I before either of us went there, unintentionally or otherwise
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Hey guys, just got back! Sadly I have to go back to class soon too. Oh well...
Yeah, what he said. ; )
Yeah, like I said, I think flag burning is ugly, but I'm not about to prosecute those who do it. I also think the KKK is hateful and wrong, but I am not going to throw them in jail for simply believing other people are inferior.
Fly (or flame) your flag, beat your drum, yell in my face, stomp in the street, just don't kill anyone, that's ultimately where I draw the line, in any case.
The rule is supposed to be that no one is to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law and justice, and of the ability to redress of grievences. That has not always been honored unfortunately. Though I have many complaints with our system, I would rather improve it than abandon it, and I think it's still one of the best (not perfect of course, never was).
Kurgan
[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 05, 2000).]
Off-Topic: Normally I'm pro-death penalty. However, lately too many innocent people have ended up on death row, hence I'm for a moratorium per the state of Illinois. Especially Texas. Something is seriously messed up with their judicial system. When presidential candidate Bush lets a guy get executed when he clearly had incompetant council, and evidence supporting his innocence was not allowed to be presented - well that's just wrong. Plus, George Jr. has made several retarded comments, like, "...of the 300+ please executed in Texas, I am confident none of them were innocent..." Okay, that's just a stupid thing to say under any situation, but especially in light of how screwed up the judicial system is in Texas. Either George Jr. is the worlds biggest, cold-hearted liar, or he's as stupid and pig-headed as his father. Probably a little of both.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Vagabond, you missed my point entirely. I know women are fighting for their right to choose. Who would fight under the banner "Let's legalize abortions, so women can have their bodies mauled and the doctors who do it can get rich by either patient payments, insurance payments or federal funding, who then will fund our campaigns, line our pockets and further our political careers. And let's encourage promiscuity so we have repeat customers and some good job security"? But present it as "A right to choose what you want to do with your life and body" and people line up.
I agree, if a sperm dies, so what. If an eggs ovulates, runs its course and never gets fertalized, so what. BUT, once those two join, you have all the genetics needed for a human being, and in 9 months, barring a mishap or a scalpel, a baby will be born.
Tell me this is not a human, albeit unborn :
http://www.independent.ie/1999/302/d20a.shtml)
I do not think abortions should be illegal, but when people(male or female) go out, aren't responsible with their bodies which are fully capable of child-bearing, and a pregnancy results, hey, face your consequences of your actions...guys, get ready support a mother and support and raise a child, girls get ready to carry, give birth to and raise a child.
I am absolutely against using abortion as a means of birth control, there are too many options to discourage conception. You must, with an adult body, be responsible for it. Once a woman is pregnant, there is another human life to be considered, don't punish it for your irresponsibility. It all seems to me like this: "Do whatever you feel like without forethought of consequences, and if you get pregnant and don't like the idea of having a baby and raising children, abort it and go on your merry way"...that is not good for any society, and if you look at the downfall of every empire/society, you'll see common threads...that's one of them.
[This message has been edited by quite-gone gin (edited July 05, 2000).]
Yes, it's all in the presentation of the statement, and your rather dramatic misrepresentation of the issue is a perfect case-in-point.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Yeah, I'd say neither Gore, nor Bush really deserves to be president of the United States... we've got enough corrupt idiots running around grabbing money and power from us already. ; P
I'm against the death penalty. I feel we need to research better means (and no, I don't mean torture or something wicked like that) to rehabilitate criminals, reduce crime, etc). Too many folks are being thrown in prison, and there's too much poverty. Poor people get jailed by the thousands, while rich criminals get slaps on the wrist. That's not justice.
On the abortion debate, I think we need to sort these two things out first:
Myth #1: Those who are against abortion are all fanatical wild-eyed religious zealots who want to bomb and kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Myth #2: Those who are against abortion are all a bunch of Christian, conservative, rich, men. They obviously can't care about women, because they aren't.
Myth #3: Most abortions are rare, and only performed on poor, unfortunate women, to save their lives, after they have been raped, and they can't afford to keep their child and wouldn't make good mothers, so they are being helped out of a bad situation by a caring provider.
Myth #4: The fetus is not human, a blob of tissue, or a non-human animal, and thus has no rights at all.
Even those who support abortion will agree (the intelligent ones anyhow) that the above are myths, not facts.
Those that support abortion do not rely on the above to "prove" their position, or else they end up appearing both ignorant, and pompous. That's my rant...
Kurgan
[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 05, 2000).]
Kurgan,
On your point #2, I disagree. The majority group that opposes abortion are conservative, christian, males. This is a fact. Just poll the people opposed to choice in this very thread. Granted, it's not scientific, but it shows my point.
And Kurgan, compared to me, you are a bastion of conservativism. I know you like to consider yourself middle-of-the-road, but from your public statements, you clearly are not. I don't mean that as an insult either, so please don't take it that way. Just call it like I see it.
Here are the facts as I see them:
1. Women are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than men are.
2. Black men are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than white men are.
3. Liberally-minded people are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than conservative people are.
4. Non-zealous people of faith are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than are the zealous people of faith.
All these things are true and obvious, Kurgan. You can't deny it. Since this is true, then the implication is that the converse is also true. Example: men are not more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than women are, etc.
You may choose to disagree with my points, but I am confident that what I have stated is factual and provable...with some accurate statistical polling....done by an independent group.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Kurgan and Vag:
I know a man who used to own something like 26 abortion clinics with his partner, they made ludicrous amounts of money from abortions, absurd amounts. He walked away from all of it, even his partner's offer of half the value of their operations, which was in the millions, and he walked away from it...he couldn't reconcile the profit with the loss of life. He's the one who told me about abortions being all about the money, and the political machine behind it. It's his word, as someone from that arena, vs. yours from your stance...I must say his word stands over yours at this point in time.
Kurgan, the same goes for prisons...there is so much money changing hands with the building of many new prisons, and a lot to be made running them, much of it state and federally funded. The telco's make bank from prison phones too.
BTW, have you ever seen an abortion performed, live or on video? If I was a woman, there's no way I'd let anyone do that to my body, nor if there were a similr procedure for men.
Do you ever notice how much people don't like those who take stands for religious reasons? It's almost communistic, religion being the "opiate of the people." (Don't get me wrong, I think in theory that communism is a great idea, but IRL, the ruling party gets what more than "according to their needs.")
Vag:
I could just as easily say that your your presentation is nothing more than one who has fallen for the "propaganda" theory I propose.
In response to you comment about the unwilling mother and the unwanted child...I agree. A woman should not be forced to have a child she didn't want, but the only case I would grant that circumstance would be rape.
For clarification, if someone is unwilling to be pregnant and doesn't want a child, you take precautions. My wife and I don't want children yet, so we are careful. When we want children, we'll stop being careful. We are talking about people who aren't ignorant of the facts that sex and only sex (okay some procedures do!) leads to pregnancies, that their bodies are mature enough to get pregnant, and that there are means available to avoid pregnancy even while being active (that's why sex ed exists). There is freedom to have sex, but it may lead to a pregnancy whether you use protection or not. That's the point, who doesn't know that? And this stance has nothing to do with me having a penis.
Should I be able buy a gun, load it, shoot a man dead, knowing full well what happens if you shoot someone, and not be responsible for my actions? When they throw me in prison, and my "freedom" is stripped away, should I be able to say, "No you can't take my freedom." I forfeited it by my free actions. If I, man or woman, have sex (with or without protection), there is a responsibility to the cosequences of my actions, pregnancy included. Is it fair that the woman bears the child and not the man? No, but that's the way it is. Should men abandon their pregnant girlfriends? No, but they do.
Freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand. I am free to do what I want, but I am responsible for what I do in my freedom. That's what's wrong, people want the freedom but not the responsibility. There is no freedom without resposibility...that's anarchy. If I freely get a woman pregnant, I have a responsibilty to her and the unborn child. If a woman freely gets pregnant, she has a responsibilty to the unborn child. IS THIS NOT TRUE? (please answer)
And BTW, I know many women who didn't want abortions, but their boyfriends talked them into it, and they (both) regretted it later. It had nothing to do with "her right to choose" but his not wanting to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. And the same holds true for most abortions..."I/we wasn't careful, but I don't want to face the cosnequences, so let's abort it" (and the only way to justify that is by calling it a lump of tissue).
Do guys manipulate girls into bed? Yes. Will he carry that child? No. Will he stick around and be there for her...maybe! Ladies, be responsible for yourselves, just in case he won't! Exercise your freedom and your right to choose BEFORE you get pregnant...there are options. (My mom wanted a girl and girl and got me, I'm glad she didn't abort me for soemthing I had nothing to do with) If you abort and innocent unborn human, you take away their opportunity to live, and it doesn't matter what situation they grow up in.
Men, be men. Be responsible before pregnancy, and after if it comes to that. And don't leave your lady, be a responsible man and own up to it.
[This message has been edited by quite-gone gin (edited July 06, 2000).]
The doctor's opinion, that you referenced, is no more valid than mine.
I'm not going to enter a discussion on my views of the validity of making stands for religious reasons. Suffice it to say that I am agnostic and place little value on beliefs founded merely on faith. That's my choice.
People who don't believe in a woman's right to choose can exercise their belief by never choosing an abortion. Let those of us who disagree with you follow our beliefs, allowing us the freedom and liberty to choose what course we wish to take.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
So now you know more than 'doctors' performing abortions Vagabond? That man's 'opinion' (which it isn't, it is a varifiable fact I have seen as a result of research, I can get my hands on a list of prices for body parts of fetus' if I want).
I dare you to read the book of The Hand of God if you have any intellectual honesty at all. The author is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who I have mentioned before, and he was in a large way responsible for the legalization of abortion in the US. He presided over 65000 abortions and performed thousands himself. Nobody knows more about it than he does, not even you (although I'd like to see you pretend to). He finally broke down under the slaughter and rejected it.
If you care at all about what this thing you support really is, you will read the book.
Also, if you have any urge to educate yourself whatsoever you should also read Forgiven of Murder, written by Denise Montenay. Most women support abortion? HA! My ass they do. Abortion is the biggest oppressor of women in the history of mankind. She outlines what happened in her abortions and in other women's, the pain and suffering, maltreatment, sterilizations and even some deaths.
In her words, "Abortion is not a black and white issue, it is blood red. There are two victims in every abortion. One dead, and one wounded."
To support it is to oppress women for the financial gain of rich, white men.
------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield
Conor, your theatrics do your cause a grave disservice.
An abortion is an operation, so in a technical sense there is a wound to the mother, but rarely does any long-term physical damage result.
Further, I'm not disputing the fact that the fetus is destroyed. It is. But the mother's rights are greater than that of the fetus.
Let's face it, we have two decisions:
1. The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
OR
2. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
I vote for the mother, you vote for the fetus. We each have our own opinions, which are equally valid. And no matter which side you choose, someone's rights get trampled on. Either position has a brutal outcome on the spirit of liberty and freedom.
This is a no-win situation, so we have to make the best of it. You follow your conscience, and allow others to follow theirs.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
"All human beings have the right to life..." Is that not part of your constitution? It seems I remember it that way.
As for no long term physical effects, that is nonsense. Read a little some time. The case of an uncomplicated abortion is extremely rare. You probably don't know just how badly the women are treated. Most of the time they are given little or no anesthetic and have their baby ripped to pieces inside them (often damaging the uterus). Then after they laying there crying they are given no help or support and told to get up and go because there are other patients.
Sometimes the baby is killed by poison, and the mother has to go into labor for hours to deliver a perfect and dead little baby (that is after the baby thrashes in his death throes for a while).
Other times in late-term abortions the mother is given a labor-inducing drug and the baby is made to be born (living) feet first. With the head not completely out the 'doctor' jabs a pair of scissors in the back of the baby's skull and widens a hole so that the brains can be sucked out with a vacuum cleaner (this is now not preferred because a baby's brain can be sold for $900).
As for support, talk to any number of groups like REAL Women or Human Life International about the untold millions of women vehemently against abortion for the horror it inflicts on both victims.
Abortion destroys many women physically and mentally. Do a little research. The information exists. I doubt you would though.
------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield
Conor,
I'm sure your sources say exactly what you say they do. The people that I know, who have received abortion, appear perfectly fine, and have had no problems bearing children in the future.
Again, we have two decisions:
1. The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
OR
2. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
I'm placing my vote with the mother, you place yours with the fetus. If you ever get pregnant, Conor, then I fully endorse your right to choose not to have an abortion.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Vag, again you avoid answering a simple question, and hide behind the rhetoric of "Oh, you're just being theatrical." (BTW, if you knew me, you'd know I'm not very theatrical, rather boring and stoic!) And you minimize the issue to "right of mother vs. right of fetus."
Answer this string of questions:
(1)When a man and woman engage in sex, with or without protection, is there a chance that she will get pregnant?
(2)Does the man and woman have access to contraceptives that can prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
(3)Barring some mishap, will that pregancy result in the birth of a vital, fully-functional human being, with all the inherent rights of all other humans?
(4)If they forego precaution, or use precaution and it fails (as they know it might), did their freedom to make choices and have sex lead to the pregnancy, unwanted or not?
Don't skirt answering those questions. If the answers are true, they exercised the right to choose several times, as free people, knowing full well the possibilty of a pregnancy, and the resposibility that comes with a pregnancy.
Now you say, well the father's/mother's right to freedom supercedes the fetus'. On what grounds? The parents already exercised their right to choose, freely engaging in an act that led to the pregnancy. On what grounds do you claim that the fetus has no right to life? An abortion WILL kill that fetus, thus denying him/her the chance to ever exercise rights or experience life as you and the parents have. Having the baby will NOT kill the mother or the father (granted, IF it comes to the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus, the choice belongs to the woman, whether abortion or not).
So what you are saying, in essence, is the right of the mother to NOT TO BE INCONVENIENCED by a direct result of her free actions takes precedence over the right of an unborn child to be born, live, and pursue life, liberty and happiness.
Substantiate that position for me, and don't hide behind "We disagree, go our seperate ways" because these discussions are the backbone of democracy. Prove yourself right, me wrong, or both, and I will concede. But do engage.
See, there are no grounds UNLESS you de-humanize the fetus, thus stripping its human status and rights. And yes, there is a difference between a cell on your skin, a sperm, an ovum, and a fertilized egg. If there is not, than I should be able to murder freely, since I'd only be destroying a clump of cellular matter (like yourself and myself).
Please note, not one of my arguments is based on faith...I never said "The Bible says so." It is common sense and reason, and not theatrics.
[This message has been edited by quite-gone gin (edited July 07, 2000).]
Oh yeah, Kurgan...ultratom/ultratommy says "Hi", we work at the same company.
Looks like I'm just going to have to keep repeating myself, because you keep ignoring the obvious:
we have two decisions:
1. The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
OR
2. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
You can't have both.
I'm placing my vote with the mother, you place yours with the fetus. We should each be able to exercise our beliefs with respect to our personal lives.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
I know there can't be both. You have a right to stand where you want on the issue.
This is debating. Since you've boiled it down to the right of the mother vs the fetus, I am attacking the ground you stand on, the foundations of your position. I am pointing out the flaws of your premises as I see them (just as you may point out mine), and you respond to my points. Then you also add the flaws you see in my premises. Then, we both stand back, look at was said, and do one of the following: change our position because the other person's points were irrefutable, or we stand even firmer because our position was challenged and we overcame the challenge. That's the process of debate.
So far, you haven't responded to my previous post, you've just restated what you said before. My last post was in response t your position, please respond to it, (and if you like, ask the same of me) and answer the questions.
I have called you out. If you can answer my questions satisfactorily, and prove why I err in my judgment and your grounds are valid, then I must rethink my position.
If you don't respond, I must assume that you can't refute my last post, but that "you're gonna stand where you stand, even in the face of greater reason that you can't argue against." BTW, if that is the case, then that makes you a man of faith (not very good for an atheist to admit). I can't prove what I believe in to you, and no one "proved" it to me, but I beleive it anyway...and that is my faith. It would appear, then, that you aren't atheistic, you have faith in god, just that you are god, or at least that you have faith not in any god but in your own reason and passsions. (I don't share that to get you riled up, but if I'm wrong please show me).
quite-gone gin,
First, one off-topic, minor correction: I am not an atheist. I am agnostic, which means undecided. In my opinion - and we've beat this dead horse thoroughly in a different thread - to be either an atheist or a believer in God, takes a leap of faith. This since there exists neither any concrete evidence nor any repeatable scientific experiment that can be conducted, which will either prove or disprove the existence of God. That being the case, and being of sound scientific mind, I choose to be agnostic, since I have nothing substantial upon which to base an opinion. Therefore I am as open to the possibility of God, as I am to there being none. But I digress...
The reason I haven't addressed any of your previous points is because I see them as irrelevant to the issue. In my mind the relevant issue is which person you choose to oppress, and which you choose to liberate. Further, a more interesting discussion would be the reasons we've chosen to champion one, while abandoning the other.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Okay, millions of woman are against abortion, as well as men.
Many Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are also against abortion.
Worldwide, your conservative, Christian, RICH, men are in the minority.
Even in this country they are the minority.
Again, this line of reasoning is flawed. I assume you have a problem with these guys, as you keep mentioning them.
It would be sort of like if I said, we need to use the death penalty, because the main people who are against it are black men, and we all know black men commit more crimes than white people.
I assume you are not a Rich conservative. Well neither am I. It's obviously a group you have some anger towards.
It's the archetypical "us vs. them" mentality. ; P
Kurgan
Kurgan,
I believe you've misinterpreted what I said. I'll repost to refresh your memory:
1. Women are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than men are.
2. Black men are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than white men are.
3. Liberally-minded people are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than conservative people are.
4. Non-zealous people of faith are more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, than are the zealous people of faith.
So, having repeated this for you to review, I stand by my points.
Point 1: I have no doubt that millions of women are opposed to the woman's right to choose. However, I am confident that a majority of women support a woman's right to choose.
Point 2: I am also confident that more men favor a woman's right to choose, than white men. Although I am quite sure that there are black men who oppose the woman's right to choose, they would be in the minority.
Point 3: I am confident that more liberally -minded people are in favor of a woman's right to choose, than conservative-minded people. You appear to agree, as you didn't dispute this point.
Point 4: Lastly, I referred to non-zealous people of faith. I chose these words carefully to refer to people of all faiths who possess a great deal of devotion for their chosen religion. These people will typically oppose a woman's right to choose as well, and I stand behind that statement.
Now, having said all that, the conversation has moved to crux of the debate, which I'll repeat for your review.
We have two decisions:
1. The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
OR
2. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
You can't have both.
I'm placing my vote with the mother, you place yours with the fetus. We should each be able to exercise our beliefs
with respect to our personal lives.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
The rights of the baby to live outweigh any rights the mother thinks she has to destroy that life barring iminent danger to her own life.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all humans have the right to life. As do most countries that I am aware of. That right is what is known as an inalienable right, is it not?
So we have a contradiction in law. Our laws state that all humans have the right to life (and only a fool would argue the unborn baby isn't human, as there are no grounds to do so), yet we have legalized the slaughter of a group of humans on the basis of their age alone. We have put all human lives between the ages of 0 and 9 months in the hands of another group of humans, their mothers (and sometimes, perhaps often, their fathers and others). While parents can, do and should exert influence on their children, to suggest parents should have the ability to destroy their own children should they be an inconvenience to them is, well, ****ing nonsense.
------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield
Please bear with me, this is long. But it's an important and complex issue. Please hear me out on this...
Let me make one thing absolutely clear before I respond. I am not talking about a "woman's right to choose."
Whether or not it is really a "choice" or a "right" are up to debate, and again depends on who you talk to.
Yes, logically speaking, conservatives should tend to be against abortion (via the Republican Party platform) and Liberals (via the Democratic Party Platform) should be more inclined to support it.
I am debating the point of abortion. Not the "right to choose" but abortion itself.
I would argue that in the case of which a woman will surely die if she does not have an abortion, is the only case where abortion could be justifiable, as I consider all human beings worthy of the inalienable right to life, regardless of what some Supreme Court Justice said he thought the Constitution implied on the matter.
Either abortion is legal or it isn't. If it's legal, then you have to decide when and where it is permissable.
The only logical instance I can think of, based on the assumption that all humans have an inalienable right to life is when the mother will die unless she has an abortion.
However, and this is the moral point of conflict. We have two competing choices, as you stated several times.
Either the mother dies, or the child dies. One person will live, one will die. Who gets to live? And who can decide such a thing?
It's a little like this: let's say your mother, passed out in street. A car with a family is driving down the road and is about to his your mother's body and kill her.
You have a bazooka in your hands, and if you are quick enough, you will be able to fire a rocket and blow up the car with the family inside. The whole family will be killed, but your mother will survive. If you do nothing, and you have no chance of saving her otherwise, your mother will die.
Now what would you do?
The family is innocent, they don't know they are about to do harm. Yet if you kill them, you just destroyed some human lives. Granted, they are strangers, but more than one person will die if you hit them.
Now your mother you love very much, but she is only one person. If you save her, others will die, but if you let the others live, she will die, and surely you shouldn't let your mother die.
That is a little like this situation.
It is a tough moral issue because both outcomes are bad.
The unborn child is at a disadvantage because it cannot plead its case to the Doctor(s) to let him/her live. The mother is probably not "all there" but she will definately want to live.
It is a sad case, and I think it will probably end up that the mother will live and the child die. If however, the mother wants to let the child live, then she may freely sacrifice her life for her child.
Perhaps if there is another family member who can make the decision (if she is incapable of doing so) can do so. Still, it's not a black/white issue. It's about as gray as you can get.
So, in short, for this reason, and only this reason, I could argue that abortion could be legal. That is however the only case. Not rape, not incest, not sex selection, not inconvenience, not population control, not "health matters," not political affiliation, not government decree, etc.
If a child is such an inconvenience, then adoption is the answer. The child will live and the mother won't have to worry about raising him/her.
A child concieved in rape is no less human and deserving of protection than a child concieved during consensual sex. The child did not cause the rape, and is innocent of the matter. Again, adoption is the answer.
As to population control, there are many other, far less brutal and life-destroying methods of controlling population. Among them are taxation on number of children a family may have (though I consider this completely un-Democratic and harsh), sex education, birth control (non-abortive of course), and the building of better housing (instead of building more mansions for rich tycoons, golf courses, and shopping malls, maybe we should build houses for people who need it, instead of throwing them in jail and costing us even more money).
According to studies, most cases of Incest are actually consensual, so, while it is illegal, again, the sex itself is not wrong in any way other than social taboo or religious preference, and the child concieved is no less human than one concieved from people who are in no way closely related. The child did not decide to be conceived either, so it utterly innocent of the matter.
Abortion is big business, but we shouldn't let that stand in the way of the cause of humanity. Tobbacco is also big business, but is what they are doing moral? It's destroying lives for a profit, is it not?
A human life is a human life. If there's no danger to the mother's life with delivering her baby, then abortion is not an option.
=======================================
Now, my response to Vagabond's last few posts:
========================================
So Vagabond, your statement about who is for abortion/against abortion is based on a few (what you consider) logical assumptions (which you have posted above).
I'm sure you haven't talked to everyone so you should admit the possiblity that your view is limited.
I could argue that:
Men can't be sympathetic to woman's issues, because they are a different gender (you have said that phrase about "because I have a penis" thing, as if men cannot be feminists, which I don't buy). However, that implies that men only care about themselves and are incapable of understand the differences between men and women. This is debatable. Such a thing called sympathy exists in which people can comprehend what others are feeling, even if they themselves do not have the same problem.
I know for a fact many woman don't believe in abortion. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading about women speaking out against it and polls would show 90% of women in favor of abortion (which they do not).
Most polls I see say that Amercians are divided over abortion. I do not know how it is with the rest of the world. In some countries it's legal, others it's not.
I know for a fact Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist leaders have spoken out against abortion, thus imply that Christians are not the only religion that has members that are against abortion.
I also know for a fact that there are those who are in favor of abortion who consider themselves Christians (and Jews, I don't know about Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists, but I'm sure there must be at least a few that do). So not all Christians are against abortion either.
I have read books and reports by woman, that are against abortion. I have read documents written by woman, some learned, some even doctors or former abortion doctors, or woman who have had abortions, even atheist women, who are against abortion.
Yes, many woman support abortion, and many women do not.
And the stuff about it being RICH men who are against abortion is only half right.
Rich men are not a majority in this country. Last I checked, we were about 51% female, and "rich" is a relative term. If you mean millionaires, then that's something like less than 10%. Many middle class and poor people are against abortion, so I would rule out the possibility that it is only the rich who are against it.
Again, many who SUPPORT abortion are rich and/or powerful, so there are some on both sides.
Most polls seem to show a fairly even split (depends on which side you ask, usually it's a few points towards the side who reports it) among Americans over whether or not Abortion is morally right/wrong and/or if it should be illegal in all or most cases.
Most of the American mass media personalities polled identify themselves as "liberals."
About the only "conservative" news broadcasting I get in my town is Fox News.
Yes, the Republican Party platform is against abortion. However, that does not mean all Republicans are against abortion. There are some that are for it. The same goes for Democrats. Though their party platform is in favor of it, not all Democrats believe in it. Some do not.
The same goes for the Reform Party. While they do not have a specific platform stance on social issues, the party is normally identified with pro-choice folks like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. However, there are those in the party who are against abortion, like Pat Buchanan.
The same is probably true of any political party (I think the Green Party tends to be pro-choice, but I only know for a fact that Ralph Nader is that way, not sure about anyone else).
And finally, as to the term "white."
Most people in America (at least last I checked) are non-White, due in part to our massive immigration from Mexico and Asian countries.
However, whites alone makeup the largest single racial group in the US (that will soon change to Hispanics I have read).
So, that does not necessarily mean that all Whites or even most whites support abortion, or are against it. It is probably divided just like it is in most other groups.
Finally, I will say that simply stereotyping those who are against abortion does not help the case for abortion anymore than it hurts the case against abortion.
It's kind of like those people who say those who protest against the WTO are all a bunch of hippie, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, crazy Marxists.
Saddling people with labels is a very serious thing, as it can taint our judgements about people and limit our interaction with them. Every person is a little different, and if you believe in free will, we can be VERY different if we choose to.
I thought the whole point of liberalism was to tolerate diversity (as well as embracing big government, but I don't agree with that). Surely a good Liberal like yourself would want to avoid doing that sort of thing, and be more open to individual differences. ; )
Again, the labels you use, Vagabond, such as "white" "conservative" "christian" and "rich" and "male" can be taken both positively and negatively, depending on who you talk to.
I think your intention was to present the anti-abortion people as a bunch of elitest, small-minded people, who are clearly in the minority.
While a nice emotional tactic (I don't want those White Conservative Rich Christian Men running my life! noooo!) it isn't a good intellectual counter-point, unless you can statistically prove this is so.
And even if that were true, what would be wrong with it? You seem to be saying that whatever these people believe is wrong, or that these people are bad, and so nobody should want to believe what those people believe.
A similar argument would be saying "most people that support legalization of drugs are black" which, unless it was statistically true would be a suspect statement. It would imply that blacks, as a group are bad, and so we don't want to support what they support.
I disagree, based on what I have read and heard, and the figures I've seen, with your labelling of anti-abortionists as mostly conservative, rich, white, Christian men, and that woman are naturally more in favor of abortion than men.
The burden of proof is on you, Vagabond, to show me that the majority of those who are against abortion (even in the United States) are Conservative, White, Christian, Rich, and Male (and that those who are in favor of abortion are not).
Kurgan
[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 09, 2000).]
Kurgan,
I will only respond briefly to your questions, because I want to end this direction of debate, because I don't see it useful.
1. I never used the word "rich".
2. My goal was to get you to identify yourself with the labels I was using, and perhaps ignite some small measure of empathy within you for the oppressed women. I failed, so here we are again, same as always.
============================
Now then, no one really seems to be admitting that there are two options.
1. Opress the mother.
OR
2. Oppress the fetus.
Okay, I'll issue a few comments on why I've chosen to oppress the fetus and champion the mother, and perhaps this will get the ball rolling. I mean, hell, we can piss and moan until the cows come home about how bad it is for you mean people to do this bad thing to the group I support. Not productive. No emoting seems to be occuring, so let's just keep this sterile and logical, shall we?
1. I support the mother over the fetus because she is the one who is making the personal sacrifice to bring a new person into the world. Although most women describe this as a joyous time, it's no cakewalk. Make no mistake - there are significant health dangers involved with pregnancy. I should know - my sister nearly died during pregnancy because of a form of diabetes that many women get that only lasts during pregnancy. However, my sister wanted the child and was willing to stick through it. That was her choice - one that could only be made by her, as it should be. It just seems unfair to penalize the mother with such a hardship against her will.
2. Further, I support the mother because the death rates among infants is greater than that of grown adults. So if we want more assurance that one life will survive, the adult is the clear choice. This is why I abandon the fetus: it is a less likely probability of producing a mature adult, than allowing the mother to simply terminate the preganancy and remain an adult.
That's enough for now. Maybe I'll add more later if we can get this discussion more focused. So, I've described why I've chosen to champion the mother over the fetus, and why I've chosen to abandon the fetus. Let's hear your reasons.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Sorry, I thought you had used rich in there.
My point was, you have not shown that your stereotypical group is representative of all or the vast majority of anti-abortionists, only a few.
I can certainly sympathize with any person in any case, if I try hard enough and thinking about it. It's simply an act of will and emotion.
Leaving out the term "rich" evens it up a bit more, but still, I highlydoubt that you can successfully place all those against abortion (worldwide, or in America) under the category of "white, conservative Christian males" and then claim those who are in support of abortion are not.
Your assumption is that non Christians (or at least those who are "liberal" rather than conservative in their religious beliefs) are more likely to support abortion.
You also assume that non whites are more likely to support abortion than whites.
You say that men are more likely to support abortion than woman.
However, how are those assumptions valid? They all assume that to be white means you are against abortion. To be a man means you are against abortion, etc etc. It makes no logical sense.
Your logic seems otherwise sound, but your first premises are flawed.
A person's biological traits in this case have not been shown to indicate a forfeiture of a person's free will in the case of whether or not abortion is moral/ethical/permissable, etc.
Vagabond, I wouldn't tie a person's political persuasion to their racial category or gender. Both are genetic anyhow.
Some people do this for example, by saying that Blacks are all Democrats, or Jews are all pro-choice. Those are stereotypes.
You might as well say all Irish are drunkards, or all Mexicans are "dirty," or all atheletes and blondes are dumb, and Italians have big, uh, yeah...
I am not "sympathetic to a woman's right to choose."
This is not because I believe woman are somehow inferior to men.
This has nothing to do with race.
I am not arguing in favor of any religious belief's stance on abortion (I have simply pointed out that Christians are not all unanimous in their stance on abortion, and neither are any other group).
This has nothing to do with my political affiliation (I have none).
I believe a woman has no "right" to "choose" to have an abortion. No such right exists.
If no such right exists, then to attempt to defend such a right, is meaningless.
One might as well have a "right to shoot a Jew" or the "right to lynch a Negro."
At various times in history, such "rights" have been brandished by various corrupt and hateful individuals.
I don't think anybody should be deprived of their right to life by another, ever, except in the case where letting them live would cause another to die. Even in that such case, extreme caution must be taken, as you are choosing the between two "evil" outcomes (either way, somebody dies).
Nobody has a right to kill another human being, except maybe in self-defense, but you're still taking a life. Thus the only allowance I would make in the case of abortion, would be if the mother was to die.
Do the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother have precedence? Neither one do.
They are EQUAL in any moral or ethical sense.
Both are alive, both are human, one will die.
The only bit of advice I could give, not knowing the situation we are talking about (only the vague notion of one that could happen and probably has happened somewhere at sometime), I would say that on a case by case basis this moral issue would have to be examined.
Rather than making a law that says the mother must always have precedence or the fetus must always have precedence, it should be up to the people involved, ie: the Doctor(s), the patient (the mother), and any other people (the woman's spouse, family, social workers). If you write into law that one always has precedence, you have problems in other cases (the slipperly slope again).
Once you say that one human being is superior to another, you have the same problem the Nazi's had, and there's only one final solution they came up with...
Kurgan
As to the woman's sacrifice, yes, a woman sacrifices in a pregnancy. It is a risk. As adults, we realize that most of the things we do in life are a compromise or a sacrifice of some kind.
Those who believe we should never sacrifice or compromise, and only live for personal pleasure are called Hedonists or Epicureans.
Most people agree that to get the things done that you want or need to get done, you have to give up certain other things.
Parents, especially, realize that in order to raise your children, you have to give up certain things you normally enjoy doing.
For example, you can't party all night long like you used to, because you need to make sure the children are looked after.
You need to put aside money for them to get a decent education.
You need to get food that they can eat, so they don't starve, etc.
This is what good parents do of course. There are some bad parents who starve their kids, beat them, etc. but normal people know what's to be done. Logically, children are the parent's responsiblity, and they make sacrifices all the time for them.
But at no time is a parent allowed to say "hell with this, I'm sick of taking care of you, BLAM!" and put a bullet through their brain with a pistol.
If that's the case, then why should a pregnant woman have the legal option to get rid of her baby "terminate her pregnancy" have her offspring ripped from her womb and killed in a barbaric fashion then cast into the garbage or disected and sold for profit and genetic experiments?
People have responsiblity thrust on them all the time.
People who don't accept this responsibility are called immature. They either end up dead or in jail most of the time. Sure a few rich playboys sneak by, but for most cases, people who don't do what they're supposed to do end up suffering for it, because they didn't do their duty.
Incidentally Vagabond, as to pregnancy. Yes, it is dangerous to women.
If a woman is pregnant "against her will" then one of two things has just happened:
1) She was completely ignorant of what sexual intercourse is, and what contraception was, and had sex anyway, perhaps she was seduced when she was very young.
I think most people that have sex realize what sex is. They don't believe a stork brings babies. They know they are taking a "risk" (in fact many risks, pregnancy, rape, std's...) Maybe I'm wrong...?
2) She was raped, and could not use any sort of emergency contraception. I'm sure this happens.
Most woman I think, are not pregnant against their will, as you say. Unless of course they are rebelling against nature.
When people die, they often die against their will. This is because people would rather keep on living. With all their might they wish to live, but they die anyway. Isn't that unfair of nature to do that to them? Often in these cases, all of medical science cannot help them.
If I do not want to breathe, I can hold my breath. It is an act of will. However, eventually, against my will, I am forced to breath again. It is impossible for me not too, unless I choke myself to death with a bag or something (dying). Yet, by a sheer act of will, I cannot stop breathing for long. My will has been violated by biology and nature.
So in the face of this injustice, perhaps we should realize that sometimes our own wills are subordinate to nature's.
Yes pregnancy is dangers.
But so is just about everything we do in life.
Crossing the street, driving, shopping, taking medicine, swimming, eating, drinking, talking, sleeping, breathing, etc etc.
All of these activities have risks. Granted, some are less than others, but people have died from doing all of the above.
The mere presence of "danger" does not justify killing.
Police might as well, when they see some teenagers hanging out on the corner, SHOOT TO KILL, because there is a danger that they might be criminals with guns or they might be about to commit some horrendous crimes like gang rape or a gang war. Why take chances?
One might as well never drive a car.. the risks of an accident can be very high. Millions of people die in auto accidents.
Don't eat or drink anything.. it might be poisoned or contaminated. It might lead to heart disease or obesity! Or you might get addicted to whatever chemicals are in it and have your quality of life reduced!
You might as well never breathe. There's so much pollution in the air, you might inhale some second-hand smoke, or you might breathe in some particles that will give you cancer!
Don't speak, someone might hear you and suspect you are a spy, or a rival gang member, or some crazie thinks you're out to get him. Someone might hear you and try to kill you.
When you go to sleep, who's to say some disaster won't befall you as you slumber? Many people die in their sleep. You might stop breathing, it happens. Somone might kill you, or your house catch on fire and you'd be trapped inside. Had you been awake, perhaps your chances of survival might have been higher.
Don't go shopping, the place you go to might be held up. Or it might catch on fire, or they might sell you a contaminated product! You might get mugged in the parking lot, or have an accident on the way there!
Everything is dangerous to some degree.
We ALL DIE eventually, some quickly, others slowly. Some painfully, some peacefully.
Isn't it unfair that people suffer and die in this world and most of it cannot be prevented?
But isn't life something precious? If this is all we have, shouldn't we try to preserve it? Aren't all human lives worth something?
Shouldn't we try our best, in the spirit of humanity, to better the lives of those we can and try to prevent suffering instead of causing it?
Is killing those who might suffer really the answer?
Rapes are a very small percentage of the cases of abortion in this country. This isn't the dark ages where more woman died in pregancy than lived (or close to it).
In this day and age in this country, the fetus is more in danger of dying (from abortion or complications) than the woman giving birth. Many techniques exist to save the mother, and even prevent the mother from feeling much pain at all during pregnancy.
Thus, the fetus is the one most in need of protection. A fetus is also innocent. The fetus has done nothing to deserve being given the death sentence. He/she is already alive, and biologically human (virtually identical to other human beings). The fetus is also genetically distinct from his/her parents (inhereting genes from both) and thus a seperate individual.
Thus the fetus has no less right to life than the mother. Obviously, a choice has to be made. Is this the "choice" you speak of?
It is choosing who will live and who will die. That is the choice being made.
A Doctor should try his/her best to make sure both live, as in normal cases, however if that is not possible:
The dire situation (that one of two people must die, but one, and only one can be saved)
has forced us to make a choice.
In that case, and in that case only, would abortion be justifiable.
However there is ONE difference between letting the woman die and saving the fetus, verses aborting the fetus and letting the mother die.
If you abort the fetus, you are ACTIVELY KILLING A HUMAN BEING, and merely allowing nature to run its course for another human being. Compare this to allowing a disease to run its course in a terminal patient. Maybe it sounds heartless, but this is a definiate consideration.
If you deliver the fetus, the mother dies, but you have not killed anyone. You have merely not put forth the effort to save somebody you could have saved.
This can then tie into other issues.
Should doctors use all means necessary to save patients with life threatening or terminal illnesses? Should they use extraordinary means to save others?
If they do not have a moral obligation to use all means necessary, then somehow, letting a person die, is less morally wrong than actually killing them.
Is this true?
If it is, then to answer your question, abortion would never be right. We should just let the mother's die and save the fetus (in those few cases where this happens).
However, to be morally logical, we would also have to say that if we saw someone in danger, we would not be allowed to kill their attacker, or defend ourselves.
I would disagree with this position, but it's another possibility.
What do you think?
Kurgan
[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 09, 2000).]
Kurgan,
I never said all the people in the groups I mentioned were against a woman's right to choose. I said they tended to oppose a woman's right to choose, and I stand behind that statement. Let's face it Kurgan, it is a fact that some groups tend to be on one side or the other of this issue. There is nothing wrong with stating what is plainly obvious. Further, if you find yourself within one of those groups, perhaps you should do some self-reflection.
Correction: I believe you said in one of your prevoius posts that, "men were more in favor of abortion than women". I think you probably meant to say that men are more opposed to abortion. Just fyi.
Another note Kurgan: it is Human nature to have sex. Despite the most elaborate precautions, or lack thereof, unwanted pregnancies will occur. Regardless of how it came to be: carlessness, chance, rape, the fact is that no legislation can be passed which forces women to relinquish sovereign control of their own bodies to the state.
...Rather than making a law that says the mother must always have precedence or the fetus must always have precedence, it should be up to the people involved, ie: the Doctor(s), the patient (the mother), and any other people (the woman's spouse, family, social workers). If you write into law that one always has precedence, you have problems in other cases (the slipperly slope again)...
Actually, we tend to be mostly in agreement here. Although I would narrow down those involved to simply the doctor and the mother. I would urge a mother-to-be to discuss such matters with the father of the child and any other close family members, but this shouldn't be mandatory.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Kurgan,
Once a child is born, it becomes entitled to all the rights accorded to a citizen of their respective country. That is the difference, and the reason a mother can't pop a cap in her five-year-old son's brain once she gets tired of caring for him.
...Everything is dangerous to some degree...
Agreed, but we do those dangerous things because we choose to. Not because the government has mandated that we must.
...But isn't life something precious? If this is all we have, shouldn't we try to preserve it? Aren't all human lives worth something?...
I vote for quality over quantity. If the only life the fetus has to look forward to is a world where one's family is legislated by the government, then the quality of life and freedom are bleak. One might even conclude that the aborted fetus was getting the better end of the deal by avoiding such an Orwellian hell.
...Should doctors use all means necessary to save patients with life threatening or terminal illnesses?...
Using all means necessary to save a patient's life is distinctly different than prolonging a patent's life against the patient's will. Again, quality of life if the key. If a patient with a grevious injury or a terminal illness wishes to end one's life, then the doctor should assist with this act of mercy. Dying animals in misery are often put down by merciful Humans. Why should animals receive better treatment than people?
All of this boils down to Freedom of Choice.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Vagabond = intellectual coward, IMO. You say you are confident of blah, balh, blah, but won't acknowledge and respond when someone asks you to subsatntiate your claims or challenges you to engage. You just say "Don't want to go there."
Aside from that, sorry to hear about your sister, but glad to hear she did make it. Perhaps that's on of the "reasons" behind your stance you eluded to.
As to my reasons, my stance was just born out of chewing on the tough questions. I did have a freind who was bitter toward Christians because a freind of his was spat on and cussed at on her way into a clinic (back in mid-80s). So I didn't like the militant stance some of my fellow Chritians have, nor the "line in the stand" mentality they have with regards to abortion. I, too, boiled it down to the child's vs the mother's rights. From that point, you can read where I ended up and why. I guess I just can't fathom why someone who seems to be as much a thinker as you are say the slim chances of harm/death that a pregnancy holds towards the mother outweigh the almost certainty that the abortion procedure will kill the unborn. And even though a child might be raised is destitiute circumstances, doctors and olympic athletes have arisen from such childhoods. Sure, that may be a huge rarity, but still, what if the person who would have found the cure to the disease you are die from when you're old never lived due to an abortion? Excuse the hypothetics, but they have as much place as the "opressed women" I keep hearing of.
Not that I expect a response, unless YOU see it as relevant, but who are you referring to when you say the "oppressed woman"...what group are you referring to? I'm just curious.
quite-gone gin, the reason I refuse to keep rexplaining myself is that these arguments simply become circular and are a huge waste of time. I say, I think blah blah blah, because of blah blah blah. Then you reply, well I think yadda yadda yadda, because of yadda yadda yadda. Etc, etc, etc...it's nonproductive.
Besides, as I said, and you seem to agree, the real discussion is which group you want to oppress: the mother or the fetus.
And the group I refer to is any woman who finds herself pregnant. That woman needs to have the free choice to either have her baby, or not. The government has no place legislating her reproductive behavior. This is my opinion, and we can piss and moan about it until the end of time, and waste our lives away in the process. The fact is, we have a difference of opinion. Period.
Call me names, if it brings you some level of comfort.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Now now, nobody said you had to be in this debate (that goes for any of you guys who might be getting a little hot and bothered).
Obviously somebody must not think it's a waste of time if they're still here...
In one case you have a woman who feels invconvenienced by a law of nature, in another case, you have a human life snuffed out by an uncaring executioner. Is it justice to side with the one who is simply more powerful in society?
Surely defending the innocent and the helpless is part of what being a true Liberal is all about? ; )
Isn't the government thrusting itself upon us already by forcing us to at least partially fund abortion and fetal research, even if we find it utterly reprehensable?
Yes, of course, I know the answer, if we don't like it (everyone together now) "you can move to another country and become the dictator there!" right? ; )
It's just those evil Republicans, trying to ruin our good time again. They don't want us to have any fun! sniff...
Of course. In a democracy, nobody is allowed to complain. "Our" government made the laws, now follow them or emigrate elsewhere. The status quo is the only way to go. Might makes right, and power is held by those who deserve it, always. The people simply don't know what's best for them, after all.*
*sarcasm(!)
Seriously, it sounds like we're comparing apples to oranges. One person's bad few months verses another person's brutal death.
Can they really be compared? Really.
I know it's a nice liberal thing to say that you stand firm behind a woman's reproductive freedom, but who's freedom are we sacrificing for it, hmm?
Is letting nature run its course really "oppression"? Seems the government is legislating our morality for us, either way.
Kurgan
I think this whole issue actually boils down to this important question:
When and where is it permissable to kill another human being?
The whole "woman's freedom" thing, I feel, is a smokescreen. It is designed to change it into an emotional issue (yes, from a humanistic standpoint it is important of course, but objectively, let's get down to it). We're talking about killing human beings. Does freedom always have to be about endless bloodshed of the helpless?
I have all the sympathy in the world for a pregnant woman who is feeling anxious about having a baby, but telling me she has a right to have it killed so she doesn't have to give birth to it is ridiculous.
This is why I can't say we're really any more morally superior to ancient cultures who practiced infanticide and human sacrifice. From the base level, we haven't changed, we just dress it up with nice words and pretend it has a different meaning.
Kurgan
And here we will have to agree to disagree
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Maybe, but I will fight abortion to the day I die. So many people did nothing during the Nazi Holocaust. I will not have it said that I did nothing during the Abortion Holocaust.
Did you know that in Canada we are forced to pay for abortion as it is completely funded by the government? Forced to fund the slaughter of babies. It makes me want to vomit.
It is tough today for people who actually believe that all humans have the inalienable right to life.
------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield
Yeah, I guess so, it's pointless trying to debate with you, Vag, but you're entitled.
You shouldn't use the word "opression", though. Opression assumes that one party is opressing the other, in which case, the silent, innocent fetus's right to live is being oppressed by whomever decides and performs the abortion. A woman, however, is not "opressed" by a pregnancy; she doesn't wake up and "find herself pregnant" against her will (but, as in rape where it may be against her will, I'm open at that point, although Kurgan had a good point I can't refute...the child conceived in rape did had no choice in that matter, and has just as much right to live as the child not conceived in rape...so I'm rethinking that one! See, that's how debating works! but I digress).
If I act, for whatever reasons and in any circumstance, and face a direct consequence of that action, I am not "opressed," I am merely paying my dues...and that is NOT circular reasoning.
It does not boil down to oppressed mother vs. oppressed fetus, it boils down to opressed fetus vs. mother/couple not wanting to face the consequences of their actions, and THAT IS IRREFUTABLE, unless someone is able and willing to prove me wrong at that point (and I would love for someone to at least try to...I'm open to having my reason shot down here, but so far no one here or elsewhere has been able to do so, and this is not a faith/religious stance, it just makes sense to me.)
I disagree with your opinion that women prevented from chosing to either keep the child or not, are not being oppressed.
However, I am disengaging from this debate, so talk amongst yourselves
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Bummer, that's what a debate is, disagree AND tell why, not just "Well, I disagree." I never felt engaged in that sense in the first place, but good on ya, mate! See you around the boards.
......annnnnnnd.....CUT! Alright people, that one looked good. That's a wrap. Play's over, players can go home!
Kurgan, you've really chalenged me on that point about a child conceived in rape, and my wife is happy for it because she disagrees with me that rape should justify an abortion...touchee!
[This message has been edited by quite-gone gin (edited July 12, 2000).]
Well it's too bad Vag's leaving (thanks for contributing while you could!).
He's left me hanging.. basically we're left with:
Assumption #1: Woman's rights are violated if she cannot choose to terminate her pregnancy at any time.
Assumption #2: Fetus's rights are violated if an abortion is performed.
Therefore: The subject of abortion comes down to who you want to oppress, the fetus or the woman?
The problem of course is that where does Assumption #1 come from? #2 we established by saying all human beings have an equal claim to a right to life, which is inalienable, except in the case of trading a life for a life (ie: self-defense).
And finally, the last jump is then how do we get from "Either you opress the woman, or the fetus" and he says the woman's rights overrule the fetus's rights be default.
If anyone can explain this to me, I'd be much obliged.. it just doesn't click for me.
I would like a logical defense of it, if possible, or a philosophical one. Please be more specific than "a woman has a right to choose, period."
Kurgan
Jedi Calypso, I'm TOTALLY against your beliefs. I think abortion IS illegal. I believe that after and egg gets fertilized and starts to grow is living. "Abortion legal" right and animals have common sense.
(Note: I'm using sarcasm, animals are dumber than a box of rocks).
I have to jump in for just a second, on this one topic:
Darth Prime,
You show your ignorance. Depending on the animal, of which Humans are a member, the level of intelligence varies. Bovines are imbecilic, while Apes are quite clever. In some cases, it would seem, certain animals are even more intelligent than certain people.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Hey Vag, thanks for the confession! (Sorry, but I couldn't resist that one...you totally set yourself up for that one.)
Hey I think other animals are great, really, but as a species we have to stick together. At least we aren't afraid of vaccuum cleaners!
Nor do we eat our own feces (well, not unless we get lots of green paper first).
; P
And that's just some of us, I don't think I would for any amount of money...
Again, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. And just because a group of people say something is moral doesn't automatically make it moral, even if those people have lots of money and power.
That is, unless you believe that might makes right.
Kurgan
As we continue to debate, let's keep in mind that we shouldn't be attacking the PERSON, only their viewpoint or statements.
Keep it polite and civil and we can go along way towards understanding the other fellow.
Kurgan