[maxelson]

Originally posted by VRL:
<STRONG>


2 - If a woman has an abortion, she's not a mother. And for either a woman or man to want to abort as a "matter of convenience" is despicable, IMO. Very selfish.

</STRONG>

Another one of those rash generalizations. One that is more offensive than you clearly know.
Life is not black and white, not matter how much you'd like it to be. "IMO" does not give license to condemn.
All stories are not yours. You cannot have knowledge of them. Think before you take such a cavelier attitude, such a "moral" high road... or at least think before you spew. Have your opinions... but judge not.

[fobside]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

Another one of those rash generalizations. One that is more offensive than you clearly know.
Life is not black and white, not matter how much you'd like it to be. "IMO" does not give license to condemn.
All stories are not yours. You cannot have knowledge of them. Think before you take such a cavelier attitude, such a "moral" high road... or at least think before you spew. Have your opinions... but judge not.</STRONG>

It does say "IMO" in his post. I think he brought up some good points. You don't have to agree with him, nor do I. You can simply state your own opinions as well. Let's not try to censor ourselves because we might offend someone. Let's watch our words though and take other's words with a grain of salt.

He did point out that he believes that once conceived, it is human life. So it does then become a question of who has the right to decide whose life is valuable or more valuable. Good points.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by fobside:
<STRONG>

It does say "IMO" in his post. I think he brought up some good points. You don't have to agree with him, nor do I. You can simply state your own opinions as well. Let's not try to censor ourselves because we might offend someone. Let's watch our words though and take other's words with a grain of salt.

He did point out that he believes that once conceived, it is human life. So it does then become a question of who has the right to decide whose life is valuable or more valuable. Good points.</STRONG>

I have no issue with his idea of when life begins. I have no issue with his idea of who's life is more "valuable". I take issue with the specific lines I quoted. I do not condemn him. I take issue. Harshly, perhaps. As I said, "IMO" is not carte blanche to condemn others. People he does not know. Women who's circumstance is completely unknown to him. It is THAT with which I take issue. I thought I was clear. I guess I was not.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I've got a better question for you: define life. Give me a clear, concise definition of life that isn't problematic. (here's a hint: good luck, philosophers and scientists have been struggling with this one for a long time, and are nowhere closer to an answer than before, so good luck) How can anyone define where life begins when no one can really define what exactly life is?

Life doesn't really begin, per se. It already began, a long time ago. Seems to me the better question is about individuality and social justice.

[astronomix]

One thing is sure : we all can have this debate because none of our mothers chose abortion. The only ones who don't have a chance in life are the ones who are given none.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by VRL:
<STRONG>All life deserves protection and a chance ... no matter how small, or defenseless.</STRONG>

agreed.
(this is not directed at you specifically, but to any anti-abortionists here who feel similarly who feel like replying.) In check list form:

1. may I assume this means you are also vehemently against the death penalty?
2. against weapons of mass destruction?
3. Are you as strongly opposed to child abuse (well, not a fair question, who would be for it?) I mean, to the extent that abortion is an important issue to you, is protecting victims of child abuse an equal priority, or do you not give it much thought?
4. Do you think its ok to murder clinic doctors and staff?
5. How about phoning in bomb threats to clinics?
6. should people who do that be prosecuted as felons, or should there be some leeway since they are crusaders for the cause?
7. Are you a woman?
8. Have you known any women who have given birth?
9. Have you known any women (actually known, not heard of) who have had abortions?
10. If so, what was your opinion of them before you knew? what was your opinion afterwards?
11. What would your opinion be of a single mother with no intent to marry who raised her own child? Would you treat her with the same respect as a married mother?
12. Do you hold the father of the child to equal responsibility in the health and welfare of the embryo? Why or why not?
13. Is a child who starves to death due to poverty the same as one who is aborted, in level of your attention?
14. Exactly what convinces you that you have(do not have) the right to determine what a woman you've never met should do with her body? Why or why not?
15. Do you think the state should control how, when and what matter of birthcontrol you personally practice? (talking beyond abortions here)


ok...a big point is that as far as I can tell (and there is admittedly NO way to know for sure) except for C33 who purports to be female, all the participants in this discussion are male. If I am wrong, could anyone who participated who isnt male (and who wishes to) identify themselves as female? (my contention is that ultimately we shouldn't really have a voice in this debate unless we actually own the plumbing involved)

[dav]

what i don't understand in the anti abortion side is where does it all stop. should we imprison all pregnant women to a facility where there is only clean air, well balanced diet, no drugs, regular exercise, etc., because surely not following a prescribed healthy life style while pregnant is child abuse. will a child be able to sue his mother because he never achieved what he feels he could have if his mother had taken prenatal vitamins.

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Why isn't anyone proud to say they had an abortion?

Why aren't there bumper stickers that exclaim, "I made the choice to have an abortion!"

Why not?

Because it's wrong, perhaps?</STRONG>

Hmmm... why aren't there bumper stickers that exclaim "I was raped once."

Do you believe any secret you want kept is something you did that was morally wrong?

[maxelson]

Why isn't anyone proud to say they had an abortion?
Because no one would be. What? Is this a game? Do you think everyone makes a decision like that casually? DO you? Do you think it is a casual, callous decision? It seems, in your estimation, in the tone behind your posts, that you believe this to be true. This may be true for some. You have NO idea what someone who chooses this route goes through. Obviously. NO idea. Nor do you care.
It is so damned easy to judge when you stand at a distance. My God, but you are good at it.
I am, quite simply, disgusted by this "If you choose this, you are a monster" attitude. "If a woman has an abortion, she's not a mother." Got all the answers do you? You know what it is all about, do you?
Answer Lerk's questions. Or get off the box.
I knew better than to step into this room. I regret having done it. I cannot stand being reminded that humans will, at every opportunity, shun the chance to look at someone else's side. To make an effort. You're only interested in judging. It must be magnificent, those of you who would condemn so joyously, to have an omnicient view. Superiority must be a marvelously warm fuzzy blanket for you.
This issue is not as simple as you would have it. No matter how hard you try to squeeze it into your own little box, it will ooze out through your fingers.
I once thought I had all the answers on this topic, too. I learned differently.

[fobside]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>1. may I assume this means you are also vehemently against the death penalty?</STRONG>

ill answer this one real quick before i got out. i am against abortions but i am not against the death penalty. believe rules are set up for a reason. the death penalty is not simply the taking of a life. its a punishment. death is pretty much the biggest thing you can take away from a person. our laws are set up in such a way that when you commit certain crimes, the punishment is death. once conceived, if it really is life, then what right does anyone have to take the life? what rules did this life break to deserve such punishment?

you can get into a lot of things with the death penalty but the big difference i see is that one is a punishment or penalty. the other would be considered an innocent life.

[macthelastredman]

pro-life for life

[deedar]

Dear max is sooo right. The issues are not simple ones here - indeed. I happen to be a 48 year old man with a 4 year old daughter. I have no other children although my wife does from a previous marriage. When she became pregnant with our daughter - I begged, pleaded, coerced, threatened - well you get the picture - that she get an abortion. I did not want a child this late in life - for god's sakes, I'll be 62 WHEN SHE GRADUATES FROM HIGH SCHOOL!!! Her response speaks for itself - literally. I am now the beaming father of a beautiful 4 year old girl who brings new meaning to my life -who wudda thunk?

That said, I plant myself firmly on the side of a woman's (actually, a couple's) right to choose. Morality is not an issue that can be legislated. If aboprtions are illegal, women will simply have illegal abortions. Abortions should be legally obtainable - simple as that. Are the issues complex ? - you betcha.

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: deedar ]

[scottiB]

fobside, I believe the question Lerkfish is implying is, "If one is pro-life, can one support the death penalty--which takes life? Isn't life in prison without possibility of parole penalty enough?"

I don't mean for this to stray into a captial punishment debate, just to clarify.
-----
deedar, congratulations on your beautiful daughter and your choice.

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]

[ringo]

I think it far worse for a child to be reared by an unloving mother who is ill-equipped or unwilling to care for her young than it is for that mother to kill her child before birth...and before someone screams WHAT ABOUT ADOPTION YOU GODLESS FVCK, I'd like to remind you that astonishingly, white babies are usually the only ones in this country that there's demand for in this racist little charity market. Seems that the goody-two-shoes christians who stay so busy telling other people what they can or can't do with their bodies aren't actually willing to care for the lives they're trying to 'save.'

&lt;ducks&gt;

[fobside]

Originally posted by scottiB:
<STRONG>fobside, I believe the question Lerkfish is implying is, "If one is pro-life, can one support the death penalty--which takes life? Isn't life in prison without possibility of parole penalty enough?"

I don't mean for this to stray into a captial punishment debate, just to clarify.</STRONG>

i dont think pro-life covers both topics of abortion and the death penalty. semantically speaking i can understand the confusion. perhaps pro-innocent-life might be a way to describe the aborition issue. as far as the death penalty goes, the lives are not innocent according to the courts.

[deeg]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
<STRONG>

Are there any other issues where half the population Should be excluded because of gender?


[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: lurkalot ]</STRONG>

feminine hygene products

[BlackGriffen]

I just remembered a couple of historical facts that may add an interesting perspective to the debate.

First, in the Roman Empire/Republic, a father had absolute authority over the lives of those in his household. He literally had the right to kill his children until they left to form their own family (as husband or wife), and I believe may have had the right to kill his wife and/or any slaves. I have even heard rumor (yeah, we all know how reliable those stories are :rolleyes that a father ordered his son who was commanding an army not to attack the enemy. The son attacked anyway, and won the battle gloriously. Upon his return to Rome, his father killed him, quite legally.

Second, eskimos used to drown any child born who was born before the previous child had reached a certain age. I doubt that it happens any more, and I don't know the rationalization then (assuming it wasn't religious). I suspect that it was done because there simply wasn't enough resources for both children to survive, so the decision was simply to terminate the child that was farther from adulthood/being able to contributed/take care of itself.

There are, of course, numerous other examples of what societies have done with "unwanted" children (coat hangers in back alleys, babies in dumpsters, daughter killings in India, etc.). I ask this: what is the most humane way for society to deal with those who's curse it has been to be conceived by parents who don't want them: prevent them from being conceived with thorough sex education and easy access to birth control, terminate the zygote before it even has a central nervous system capable of experiencing pain, terminate the fetus before it is capable of surviving outside of the womb without anything more than food and sanitary care, terminate the fetus before it is born, terminate the fetus after it has been born, or force the child to grow up in an environment where the child probably won't be loved (outright disliked even), likely abused (physically and emotionally), and, if the tortured child grows up to become a criminal, may ruin the lives of others. There are, of course, other options in the chain: adoption, foster care, etc. These options are, however, about equally as flawed as the one I characterized so badly. Admittedly, it's always about percentages. Some percent of unwanted conceptions will be unwanted babies. Some percent of unwanted babies will be abused, etc. Even considering this, what is the best way to handle unwanted conceptions? Keep in mind: it is impossible to stop people from having sex, and it is impossible to prevent conceptions due to accidents (condom breaks, etc) and various types of rapes (including forceful rape and incest).

BlackGriffen

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>Why isn't anyone proud to say they had an abortion?
Because no one would be. What? Is this a game? Do you think everyone makes a decision like that casually? DO you? Do you think it is a casual, callous decision? It seems, in your estimation, in the tone behind your posts, that you believe this to be true. This may be true for some. You have NO idea what someone who chooses this route goes through. Obviously. NO idea. Nor do you care.
It is so damned easy to judge when you stand at a distance. My God, but you are good at it.
I am, quite simply, disgusted by this "If you choose this, you are a monster" attitude. "If a woman has an abortion, she's not a mother." Got all the answers do you? You know what it is all about, do you?
Answer Lerk's questions. Or get off the box.
I knew better than to step into this room. I regret having done it. I cannot stand being reminded that humans will, at every opportunity, shun the chance to look at someone else's side. To make an effort. You're only interested in judging. It must be magnificent, those of you who would condemn so joyously, to have an omnicient view. Superiority must be a marvelously warm fuzzy blanket for you.
This issue is not as simple as you would have it. No matter how hard you try to squeeze it into your own little box, it will ooze out through your fingers.
I once thought I had all the answers on this topic, too. I learned differently.</STRONG>

I am not swayed by your rhetoric.

My opinion is that a woman who had an abortion is not fit to share my time.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by deeg:
<STRONG>

feminine hygene products </STRONG>

Touche! (well in that general area anyway. A matter of pronunciation really) (and spelling )

The direction of the discussion on this whole topic has made it clear that you cannot discuss it without including all the things various posters would like to leave out.

Medical political legal ethical (including religious) etc.

We're not islands and personal decisions (unfortunately?) have an impact on others in our society. I agree with the person who said there are too many hypothetics in this thread but not as many as you would think.
For a couple of hypothetical questions raised there have been people replying to them from personal experience. I am pretty sure some of the remaining ones could be answered if we asked every person on the planet to write down the story of his life. On a bumper sticker in a nice one line catch phrase.
My own question about dating or marrying a woman with a child was answered. By TNproud2b.
Pregnancy carried to birth without the consent of the partner was also answered. By Deedar.
Are these accounts conclusive for drawing up legislation? No and that was pointed out by TNproud2b. But he will live his life by them.

My personal answers to the original questions would be:
The well being of the mother comes first and that does not only cover well being in a medical sense.
She is not the only one that should have a say in the matter but ultimately it should be her who makes the decision.
The question of life is irrelevant to me. The zygote( to pick the one stage in the development in the original question) is alive but not a life in my opinion and the moment it has rights separate from those of the mother begins when it leaves the womb. The well being of the mother being once again the key in the decision when a safe abortion can still be carried out.
I support free choice but until many changes in our society have been made towards dealing with the circumstances surrounding race, sexuality and the acceptance of alternative ways of raising a child there will be no real freedom of choice based only on the procedure or it's legality.

I agree with Dav who said that to put the well being of the life in the womb first could have all sorts of legal consequences for the life of the mother that to me are unacceptable.

My wife had an abortion when she was 18 before I met her. We've talked about it often and although she does not regret taking that decision it is always with her. As a thought. Not as an unwanted child. You may call that callous but you don't know her.

I think I would not date or marry a woman who has a child because it does not fit into my life but I have changed my life so often that for the right woman I am pretty sure I would change it again. At this point the question is hypothetical. I love my wife and hope to spend the rest of my life with her. Some are probably thinking too much information but since I asked that personal question of others I thought it only fair to answer it myself.

I am sure there are many holes in what I just wrote and I will probably read my own words later and wonder if I could have said it more clearly but...there it is. The small change that is my opinion.

Lerkfish are those the definitive lists of choices I have yes and no on both the pro-life and pro-choice questionnaires does that mean I am hopelessly confused?


[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: lurkalot ]

[Face Ache]

I'm against abortion later than four weeks in*.

* I'm always right.

[RWoelk]

PRO-CHOICE ALL THE WAY and I'm a proud conservative who is nothing short of ashamed of his parties' position on this issue. The same applies to "Human Cloning" with established medical ethical guidelines observed, and desperately needed "Stem Cell" research.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: RWoelk ]

[dav]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>
My opinion is that a woman who had an abortion is not fit to share my time.</STRONG>

wow, i've read that line a couple times now, and i'm just flabbergasted. there's nothing more to say here.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>

I am not swayed by your rhetoric.

My opinion is that a woman who had an abortion is not fit to share my time.</STRONG>

There is no rhetoric. I am no politician. I am speaking from a position that clearly, you have no understanding of... and no desire to know it. You could not care less that there ARE shades of gray. Your judgement is passed. And, based on your previous postings, I'd have to say that you are the worst kind of hypocrite. Sanctity of life, my ass. You have shown utter contempt for those who disagree with you. You speak from a position of "superiority". Well thanks, TN, for being our salvation... but no thanks. If you offer heaven, gimme hell.
I do not wish to change your mind. NO ONE changes anyone's mind on this issue. I wish you to admit that the reality is that this issue is not black and white.
You judge. What gives you the right?
You know nothing. NOTHING. And you prove it with your reply.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
<STRONG>Lerkfish are those the definitive lists of choices I have yes and no on both the pro-life and pro-choice questionnaires does that mean I am hopelessly confused?

</STRONG>

goodness, no, they were questions off the top of my head. And I wasnt asking them to be mean or anything or to belittle people who are pro-life, I just think these issues are extremely complex, much too complex for there to be only a black or white answer. I just wanted to get a firm idea of the various views that are coupled with pro-life.

fobside: you make the distinction of innocent life, but what my post was in response to was:

Originally posted by VRL:
All life deserves protection and a chance ... no matter how small, or defenseless.

That clearly said "all life", there was no distinction of age, innocence or anything, just that all life deserve protection and a chance...which I agree with....I"m just more inclusive than only considering that that applies to the unborn.

But your qualification of "innocence" is interesting. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a single welfare mother addicted to crack has an unwanted child rather than choosing not to have it. The child is born, addicted to crack and having other problems that affect its chances for survival. Yet, it survives. We'll call him sven. Sven grows up in the cracknest, an extremely drug-riddled part of town. He has severe behavioral problems in that he is acting violently against other children at the age of 4. One child loses an eye. The state steps in and removes sven from his household...his mother, high on crack barely notices. Sven is placed in foster homes, but rapidly gets cycled from home to home because the foster parents don't know how to deal with his developmental violent behavior. 12 foster homes later, Sven runs away at the age of 14, to escape from a sexually abusive foster father. Authorities never find him, and frankly, don't care.
at 15, he's in a gang and dealing dope. At a package drop, there is a bad exchange and Sven cannot control himself, getting into a fight with another teenage dealer, leaving him dead and Sven on the run. Finally authorities care enough about Sven to track him down and incarcerate him. In the middle of transferring to a federal facility, Sven attempts to escape and in the process accidentally kills an officer of the court. At trial, the judge throws the book at him because his court appointed attorney doesn't bother to show up until 2 hours late. because of the severity of the crime, tried as an adult and sentenced to death. Several years later, after all appeals fail, Sven is executed by lethal injection.

The fetus Sven, if he had been aborted, would have been killed before he was aware of his own existence. Sure, it would have been possibly at the whim of his parents or some sense of social responsibilty. the young man Sven would have been executed by the state, never having had the basic chance to thrive and develop "normally". In both cases, someone other than Sven ended his life artificially. Innocence? who determines that? Certainly Sven did not ask to be born crack-addicted and brain-damaged to the point he could not reliably distinguish proper from inappropriate behavior. Certainly bouncing from foster home to foster home did little to give him even the basic family structure most of us felt entitled to. Certainly Sven was responsible for his actions, ultimately, but had he been born into a supportive stable family, would his actions have been the same? Does the abusive foster father share some responsibility for removing svens' "innocence", does his crack-addicted mother?.

In my opinion, the problem with pro-life is it doesn't take into account the complexity of what life is and tries to reduce life to pass/fail when it is really graded on a curve.

In my opinion, the following are some smokescreen arguments that pro-lifers use, to distract others (and themselves) from their true objectives:

1. When does life occur? (They really don't care when life STARTS, the bottom line is they want to prevent you from PREVENTING it. The real question is: WHO decides whether life can end, and how. Pro-lifers want to be that who, not the parents. For example, if life could be shown to start right before birth, that wouldn't prevent them from wanting to prevent abortions before that moment in time, they would just find another smokescreen argument to cover that. )
2. we care about life (The bottom line is they want to control what women do with their own bodies and offspring, not because they are compassionately concerned for that individual woman and child, but because abortion is offensive to their religious beliefs. This is not compassion, but rather an attempt to make everyone conform to their sense of what is right and wrong, simply because it offends them to their very core. Caring has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, and if they cared about life, they'd care about the mother, too. They do not, heaping outrageous judgment on her and accusing her of all vile things. What? once you're born your'e no longer "life"? If they truly had reverence for all life, they'd be campaigning just as hard against capital punishment, nuclear weapons, child abuse, etc. Since they don't, the only issue they care about is abortion...because the ACT of abortion is abhorrent to them, not because they really care about that particular fetus.)


I know someone personally that had an abortion. She wasn't using it as birth control for a "lost weekend". She was brutally raped at the point of a combat knife. The last thing she wanted to do was raise the rapist's child. If you think this decision was made frivolously, or irresponsibly, you're wrong. She agonized over it both at the time, and years and years later.

Personally, I'd prefer that abortion were never used, but I also prefer that the woman who actually is carrying or not carrying the child, and her qualified physician or clergy, be the people making that choice, no matter if I agree with that choice or not. The last thing I want is a bunch of religious extremists who care not for that woman or child but for their own agenda to be making that decision for her.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>

I am not swayed by your rhetoric.

My opinion is that a woman who had an abortion is not fit to share my time.</STRONG>

and what about the father of the child? do you absolve him of all responsibilty...is that ok with you? You might be surprised how many men you know have fathered children that were aborted and never tell you about it. Often, men pressure the women to "get rid of it".

So, would you say the same thing about those men? or do you reserve such harsh judgement solely for women?

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

and what about the father of the child? do you absolve him of all responsibilty...is that ok with you? You might be surprised how many men you know have fathered children that were aborted and never tell you about it. Often, men pressure the women to "get rid of it".

So, would you say the same thing about those men? or do you reserve such harsh judgement solely for women?</STRONG>

I will not date a murderer.

Nor should anyone else.


There are no 'shades of gray' when it comes to right and wrong.

How can I blame a man when it's a woman's choice?


I apologize if my opinion sheds a bad light on abortion.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: TNproud2b ]

[maxelson]

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming. I used to think of you as a reasonably intelligent person who's opinions I did not care for. Now I see that you cannot be abided. You are a hypocrite. Almost on par with a murderer. About as respectable.
You should go into politics. You'd fit in beautifully.

The topic is rested. No one else need speak. He who is omniscient has spoken. The truth has been told.

Your "opinion" sheds light on your hypocrisy and ignorance.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[TNproud2b]

A hypocrite?

Looks like you're losing this game if you're calling me names.


My opinions are clear and right to the point. I am not joking about them.


believing that abortion is wrong - and assigning blame to the person responsible - is what I think is right.

As much as you'd like there to be a 'gray area' where abortion seems less like murder - it does not exist.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>....Your "opinion" sheds light on your hypocrisy and ignorance.
</STRONG>

whoa! I say whoa, boy! (said in my best foghorn leghorn voice)

Maxelson: Tnproud is just stating his opinion. I asked him a question to clarify his position, and he clarified it. There's no reason to get too unruly with him...

Tnproud: unfortunately, one of my earlier points was that many anti-abortionists are anti-woman more than they are pro-life. As long as you blame women for getting pregnant, the other half of the rock and the hard place exists that forces some women into considering abortion in the first place.
Ironically, it's misogynist religious fanatics that actually cause more abortions...because if there were NOT such a strong negative social judgemental stigma for women who become pregnant out of wedlock than some of these women might not choose abortion.

Imagine if you set your misogynist feelings aside, and supported pregnant women regardless of their marital status, social station, etc. and made it comfortable to be single mothers...well, then, you'd be decreasing demand for an abortion.

Sadly, I think that's impossible. If you cannot prevent yourself from holding women in contempt for being pregnant and forgetting that men got them there, then you cannot actually work towards a situation where voluntary abortions are unnecessary.

Someone once said that if men had the children, abortion would be a rite of passage. I don't agree with that, but it does raise an interesting point.

[TNproud2b]

Which is exactly why abortion shouldn't be a 'woman's choice'.

It shouldn't be anybody's 'choice'.

I never discussed my feelings about the fathers of these unborn children because, quite simply, they should be taken out and shot.

I reckon that cleared up my the misconception (no pun) that I hate women.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>A hypocrite?

Looks like you're losing this game if you're calling me names.

</STRONG>
Yeah. I figured it was a game to you.

<STRONG>My opinions are clear and right to the point. I am not joking about them.</STRONG>

I wasn't laughing.

<STRONG>believing that abortion is wrong - and assigning blame to the person responsible - is what I think is right.

As much as you'd like there to be a 'gray area' where abortion seems less like murder - it does not exist.</STRONG>

You have said elsewhere in these fora that you (paraphrase) find it reprehensable that someone would hold so passionate a belief without knowing all (or even most) of the facts. How is it you hold all of the facts here? You cannot.
Again. I have no issue with your opinion on abortion. THAT is not where I am taking this. As I have said.
You specify reasons. Therein lies the gray area. You imply, with a very clear tone, that IF a woman does this, she IS this. Is that correct? You have not, to this point, left any room for shadings.
You have cast judgement on situations you cannot possibly have any knowledge of. THAT is where I take issue. I take issue with your further unwillingness to admit that there ARE other perspectives on these situations. You have cast judgement on ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS. Regardless of reason. In fact, you make no room for reason.
It is foul and arrogant.
You speak as one who is very limited in experiential scope.
I see you are still unwilling to try your hand at answering Lerk's questions above.
I know what most of your answers would be. You have answered them already in other posts, in other threads.
I want to know HOW you can possibly balance your views here. THAT is why I call you a hypocrite.
I know your view. I have held it. But that was before I took the opportunity to learn. You would, of course, call it brainwashing.

Interesting. You opine. I, apparently, spew rhetoric. All points to your general position of intolerance. Other views are irrelevant.
What's next? "I know you are but what am I?"

Here endeth the "rhetoric".

Your pardon, Lerk.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>I reckon that cleared up my the misconception (no pun) that I hate women.</STRONG>

thanks for clearing that up.

[TNproud2b]

Abortion seems so wrong when there's no chance to add a footnote to explain your 'decision', doesn't it?

Most murderers probably had a valid reason for killing...if you stuck around to let them explain.

[maxelson]

At least you are predictable. How long did it take you to cough that one up, because, quite frankly, that was EXACTLY the response I thought you'd give.
You're dodging. Again.

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>At least you are predictable. How long did it take you to cough that one up, because, quite frankly, that was EXACTLY the response I thought you'd give.
You're dodging. Again.</STRONG>

No.

My opinion simply differs from yours is all.

I do understand your position - I just think it's wrong.


Nice chatting with you.

[Lerkfish]

completely off topic, but the during the last exchange, due to screen refreshes and what not, I responded, having missed a couple of posts from tnproud to max and back, which had I seen them, I would have responded slightly differently than I actually did. weird. Viewing it now with benefit of a screen refresh it looks like a very different discussion.

I will however say that again, I don't think pro-life people are compassionate about the actual fetus, they just think people who do it are murderers and should be stopped/punished. They find the ACT rephrehensible, the actual life involved is irrelevant.

And that's fine, but I tire of the implication that only they are concerned about the sanctity of human life, as if people who are pro-choice somehow are not. If you motivation is you wish to control behaviour by the mother that you find objectionable, your movement would be better termed "anti-choice" than "pro-life" since removing choice is the actual but not stated focus. Because they are more interested in the "sin" of the women than what actually happens to the child.

[maxelson]

Agreed. I'll pull back on my own choke chain. I truly do apologize for going all rabid on you. Passion is one thing, rudeness is another.
I apologize for my rudeness.

[daimoni]

.

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>completely off topic, but the during the last exchange, due to screen refreshes and what not, I responded, having missed a couple of posts from tnproud to max and back, which had I seen them, I would have responded slightly differently than I actually did. weird. Viewing it now with benefit of a screen refresh it looks like a very different discussion.

I will however say that again, I don't think pro-life people are compassionate about the actual fetus, they just think people who do it are murderers and should be stopped/punished. They find the ACT rephrehensible, the actual life involved is irrelevant.

And that's fine, but I tire of the implication that only they are concerned about the sanctity of human life, as if people who are pro-choice somehow are not. If you motivation is you wish to control behaviour by the mother that you find objectionable, your movement would be better termed "anti-choice" than "pro-life" since removing choice is the actual but not stated focus. Because they are more interested in the "sin" of the women than what actually happens to the child.</STRONG>

Besides the one you stated there is only one other possible explanation for the basis of my abortion opinions - that is, I love kids.


Scroll up to where I stated that "I love kids".

See that?

It's unfortunate for you that I'm not a monster and I couldn't care less about punishing anyone for choosing abortion. It would make your position look better than it does if, in fact, I were a reprehensible human being.

I will never knowingly share my valuable time with a girl who chose abortion. That isn't 'punishment', at all.

[maxelson]

So (and calmly, now, I promise), your implication is that a woman who chooses to have an abortion cannot love kids?

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>So (and calmly, now, I promise), your implication is that a woman who chooses to have an abortion cannot love kids?</STRONG>

hmmm.

Maybe not quite like that.

I believe that the decisions that a person makes will mirror the type of person that they are.

There are many other things that will exclude a girl from dating me - and I'm pretty sure abortion doesn't top the list.

I also wouldn't date pedophiles or serial killers.

[maxelson]

Of course, I understand the point. But I will state that I cannot put them in the same category.
I guess my point remains that for so many people (not all), this is the most difficult and painful decision they will ever make. I will insist that this decision does not make them bad people. Of course, not all people who make this decision do so with care. While I may not like the fact that there are those who would use this procedure as birth control, it is legal to make that choice and therefore not murder, legally speaking. Morally speaking, well, it goes to your own set. Which brings us back 'round to the beginning. That's just what this issue is- a nasty circle. More divisive than not.

[TNproud2b]

If I hadn't made some bad decisions in my own life, I wouldn't be human.

It stands to reason that since I'm looking for *another* girl that I must have made a bad decision previously.

Somewhere out there is my dream girl.

and she's prolly posting on a BBS right this minute - just like me

Dream Girl: I'll never date a divorced man. I want somebody with a track record of making good decisions....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>It's unfortunate for you that I'm not a monster and I couldn't care less about punishing anyone for choosing abortion. It would make your position look better than it does if, in fact, I were a reprehensible human being.

I will never knowingly share my valuable time with a girl who chose abortion. That isn't 'punishment', at all.</STRONG>

you misunderstand...I'm speaking in general, not you specifically.
Besides I never meant antiabortionists as individuals did not like kids, I said its not as high a priority in their movement as eliminating choice.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>


I will not date a murderer.</STRONG>

Quite frankly, I don't care who you chose to date, even if you hadn't used that characterization, because at least it's not as shallow as some reasons for dating a woman I've heard (hair color, etc.).

First of all, I object to your use of the term "murderer," because it implies circumstances and motivation. Consider the difference between: "I will not date a murderer," and, "I will not date anyone who has taken another life." A murderer is someone who has intentionally taken the life of another without justifiable cause. Self defense, war, and just plain accidents are all considered justifiable reasons for taking a life. My objections don't stop there, though. I object to the idea that a woman who has had an abortion has taken a life that is separate from her own. She is obviously not dead, so she hasn't taken her own life. Is the fetus's life separate from the mother's? Well, I ask the question, isn't a requirement of separate that it is separable? How can the fetus be said to have a separate life if any attempt to move it to another person or keep it alive outside of the womb results in its death? I suggest that, even if there isn't a clear definition of life, one requirement that a life can be said to be separate from another, a requirement for having rights, is that the life is separable. Whether the requirement is that it be naturally separable, or within the limits of science, is a judgment call that needs further analysis. Is it fuzzy? You bet, but then that's the best we're capable of without a clear definition of life. Legally, it would probably be best to have doctors point to some biological event that signifies this change, so that it can be legally measurable in court cases and such.

I would have absolutely no objection if TN had said this: "I will not date a woman who has had an abortion." Since, as I said, there are a lot worse reasons for choosing whom one will date.

There are no 'shades of gray' when it comes to right and wrong.

Hmmm. Blind assertions do not an argument make, and I'd bet that even you don't honestly believe that statement. Ever heard of the old saying, "The lesser of two evils." How about this, was the United States right in allying with Russia during World War II? What about the fact that Joseph Stalin was later to be discovered to be a bigger monster than Hitler? How about the fact that, as I'm certain even FDR and Churchill knew, Russian Communism was just a different shade of totalitarianism from fascism? Should someone who kills an attacker in self defense be put to death? The defender did kill the person quite intentionally, after all. Only an incredible idiot doesn't realize that there is more than just right and wrong. If right and wrong was really all there was, then executing jay walkers would be just as morally justifiable as killing serial killers. There are no shades of gray in right and wrong, after all.

BlackGriffen

[Kitschy]

First off, let me say that I'm impressed with the maturity that most are displaying on such a heated topic as this.

On to my post.

You know, when the abortion topic is raised among my friends who are pro-choice, Lerkfish's hypothetical example is inevitably brought up (along with rape and incest). In a nutshell, this idea supposes that if the life of the child will be worse off being alive then we should terminate it before s/he is born. This, in my opinion, is a slippery slope. (While the odds may be against Sven, there is still a chance [no matter how small] that he will live a meaningful, purposeful life. And I believe we have got to give him that chance.)

I'll give a hypothetical. Let's say Sven's parents are still together and they are a typical middle-class family when Sven is born. Sure they live on the "bad" side of town, but it's where they had always lived and it didn't bother them much. Shortly after Sven was born, the father leaves the mother for another woman and Sven's mother gets deeply depressed. She quits her job and takes a nose dive quick. She's gets involved with drugs which are easily accessible in her neighborhood. A few years later, Sven's mother has become a crack-addict and as a single mother, she is not providing an adequate environment for Sven. She is never home and Sven is often left alone. Early in life, Sven gets involved with the gangs and drugs that are readily availble outside their apartment building. And at the age of 8, Social Services intevenes as Sven has already become a criminal. Social Services hands Sven off to a recently established umbrella organization of Social Services called "America�s Betterment through Organizing Rational Termination." This organization has compiled a rational test inventory that assesses the delinquency of an individual and the extent to which s/he can contribute or be a detriment to society. This test revealed that Sven has little chance to be a productive human in the short and long term and should therefore be appropriately exterminated. Sven was 8 and a half when he was deemed unworthy to live in our society. This organization is solely responsible for cleaning up the ghettos in many of America�s urban centers. Now there is virtually no crime in many of the nations largest cities. America IS getting better through rationally evalutating and terminating the delinquents in our society.

Alright, enough of that. I hope you understand my perspective which is this: The life of a human is on a continuum and wherever you choose to end it (whether after a few months or after 8 years) is wrong. Just because Sven�s mom was in a bad situation while Sven was not yet born does not mean that she could choose to end her child's life at a later age should she be in the same situation when Sven is, say, 8 years old. And if that were to happen (like in my example) should we end Sven�s life later on since he displayed the same symtoms you (Lerkfish) have suggested? Personally, I don�t think so.

This is why I believe there should be clearly defined rules that respect the rights of the unborn no matter what shape or size or time they are on the continuum of life. In this very thread we have people who say life starts at conception, at 4 weeks, at viability (whenever that is), or even a day before the baby is born. Where does it stop (or start rather)? I�ve heard of one doctor even going so far as saying 3 days AFTER birth, "abortions" should be allowed (since there should be tests to make sure the baby won�t have any diseases or whatnot). We shouldn't say that just because Sven is unborn or a toddler or a troubled teen that his chances of having a productive and positive life in the long run is so negative that we should end his life.

What if I granted you this: abortion is OK in the case of the scenario lerkfish provided as well as rape and incest. I�ll grant you that. What % of abortions does that make up? I would venture to say, not much. What about the people who are doing it just for convenience, of which I believe to be the significant majority, what about them?

Lerkfish: 1. When does life occur? (They really don't care when life STARTS, the bottom line is they want to prevent you from PREVENTING it. The real question is: WHO decides whether life can end, and how. Pro-lifers want to be that who, not the parents. For example, if life could be shown to start right before birth, that wouldn't prevent them from wanting to prevent abortions before that moment in time, they would just find another smokescreen argument to cover that. )
2. we care about life (The bottom line is they want to control what women do with their own bodies and offspring, not because they are compassionately concerned for that individual woman and child, but because abortion is offensive to their religious beliefs. This is not compassion, but rather an attempt to make everyone conform to their sense of what is right and wrong, simply because it offends them to their very core. Caring has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, and if they cared about life, they'd care about the mother, too. They do not, heaping outrageous judgment on her and accusing her of all vile things. What? once you're born your'e no longer "life"? If they truly had reverence for all life, they'd be campaigning just as hard against capital punishment, nuclear weapons, child abuse, etc. Since they don't, the only issue they care about is abortion...because the ACT of abortion is abhorrent to them, not because they really care about that particular fetus.)

1. As a pro-life supporter I need to address your first statement. Broadbrushing pro-lifers is not a good thing (Broadbrushing anybody is not a good thing). You said that we don�t really care about when life starts, but that we just wanted to prevent it. This sounds more like a blanket label to be applied to pro-choicers! I would say that they don't� really care about when life starts and that�s why they are preventing it by having abortions. If �when life starts� isn�t agreed upon then why don�t we err on the side of the baby? What is the �glob of cells� if it is not human?
2. As a religious person I need to address your second statement. You claim that �pro lifers� don't really care for the mother or baby, but the act of abortion itself. While I would agree that the act of abortion is detestable (like I would say the holocaust was detestable) I would disagree with your statement that I don�t care for the mother and baby. That is the whole reason I respond so vehemently (albeit with respect) to abortion. It�s the cessation of life caused by the decisions of other human beings. Are you opposed to murder? I would assume most are. But do you oppose it because you don�t like the fact that a bullet tearing through a brain is so disgusting? Or do you oppose it because someone has unjustly taken a human life. I would imagine the latter, and that is why I oppose abortion.

And as for capital punishment, child abuse and nuclear weapons�I�ll save that for another thread.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
<STRONG>You know, when the abortion topic is raised among my friends who are pro-choice, Lerkfish's hypothetical example is inevitably brought up (along with rape and incest). In a nutshell, this idea supposes that if the life of the child will be worse off being alive then we should terminate it before s/he is born. This, in my opinion, is a slippery slope. (While the odds may be against Sven, there is still a chance [no matter how small] that he will live a meaningful, purposeful life. And I believe we have got to give him that chance.)</STRONG>

Try, "...before s/he is a separate life." Until the fetus can survive unaided (other than basic food and such) it is no more a separate life than my foot. Should I chose to cut off my foot, that's my right. A fetus is literally a part of its mother's body that happens to have a different genetic code until it is a separate life.

What about a slippery slope the other way? I mean, shouldn't my sperm have rights? Sure, they'll die in a week or two of their own accord, but do I have a right to foreshorten their lives? After all, they only need the chance to reach an egg to become human lives, and we should give them every chance we can. I'm not joking, either, even though I knew what I said would be funny. We need to find a dividing line and say, "Here life begins, before this, there is only a potential for life that is contingent on the decisions of those already living." After all, I wouldn't want to go to jail for the millions of sperm I heartlessly butcher each day (again, not joking, though I know it sounds funny).

I'll give a hypothetical. Let's say Sven's parents are still together and they are a typical middle-class family when Sven is born. Sure they live on the "bad" side of town, but it's where they had always lived and it didn't bother them much. Shortly after Sven was born, the father leaves the mother for another woman and Sven's mother gets deeply depressed. She quits her job and takes a nose dive quick. She's gets involved with drugs which are easily accessible in her neighborhood. A few years later, Sven's mother has become a crack-addict and as a single mother, she is not providing an adequate environment for Sven. She is never home and Sven is often left alone. Early in life, Sven gets involved with the gangs and drugs that are readily availble outside their apartment building. And at the age of 8, Social Services intevenes as Sven has already become a criminal. Social Services hands Sven off to a recently established umbrella organization of Social Services called "America�s Betterment through Organizing Rational Termination." This organization has compiled a rational test inventory that assesses the delinquency of an individual and the extent to which s/he can contribute or be a detriment to society. This test revealed that Sven has little chance to be a productive human in the short and long term and should therefore be appropriately exterminated. Sven was 8 and a half when he was deemed unworthy to live in our society. This organization is solely responsible for cleaning up the ghettos in many of America�s urban centers. Now there is virtually no crime in many of the nations largest cities. America IS getting better through rationally evalutating and terminating the delinquents in our society.

Did you know that the "slippery slope" argument is actually a technical logical fallacy? See this link for a further explanation. So quit trying to distract from the issue at hand.

Alright, enough of that. I hope you understand my perspective which is this: The life of a human is on a continuum and wherever you choose to end it (whether after a few months or after 8 years) is wrong. Just because Sven�s mom was in a bad situation while Sven was not yet born does not mean that she could choose to end her child's life at a later age should she be in the same situation when Sven is, say, 8 years old. And if that were to happen (like in my example) should we end Sven�s life later on since he displayed the same symtoms you (Lerkfish) have suggested? Personally, I don�t think so.

Nope, by then he is a separate life, and thus has separate rights.

What if I granted you this: abortion is OK in the case of the scenario lerkfish provided as well as rape and incest. I�ll grant you that. What % of abortions does that make up? I would venture to say, not much. What about the people who are doing it just for convenience, of which I believe to be the significant majority, what about them?

Assuming facts not in evidence. Technically called begging the question. Besides, the best way to prevent people from using abortions as birth control is to make sure they know about (i.e. thorough sex education), and have easy access to every other method of birth control (condoms, the pill, the morning after pill [this is not an abortion in a pill, it is literally a higher dose of regular birth control that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall (something that isn't assured in any case)], etc.). Sure, there will still be those who would use abortion as birth control, but it would likely drop to a miniscule percent.

1. As a pro-life supporter I need to address your first statement. Broadbrushing pro-lifers is not a good thing (Broadbrushing anybody is not a good thing). You said that we don�t really care about when life starts, but that we just wanted to prevent it. This sounds more like a blanket label to be applied to pro-choicers! I would say that they don't� really care about when life starts and that�s why they are preventing it by having abortions. If �when life starts� isn�t agreed upon then why don�t we err on the side of the baby? What is the �glob of cells� if it is not human?

We may not be able to define life, but we can define an individual. By definition, an individual is something that cannot be divided. A mother and fetus are literally one individual life: the two literally cannot be separated in to two living wholes. So, until they are separable, a fetus may have life in it, but it contains life the same way my pinky does, and my pinky does not have rights. It is best not to err at all, and the scenario I provide gives a pretty clear empirical guideline for when a "life" begins. Even though the unborn always only has a chance at life, at the time it is actually physically possible for the unborn to be a separate life, they should be considered a separate life. Simple, no?

2. As a religious person I need to address your second statement. You claim that �pro lifers� don't really care for the mother or baby, but the act of abortion itself. While I would agree that the act of abortion is detestable (like I would say the holocaust was detestable) I would disagree with your statement that I don�t care for the mother and baby. That is the whole reason I respond so vehemently (albeit with respect) to abortion. It�s the cessation of life caused by the decisions of other human beings.

Begging the question as to whether the unborn is an individual life yet.

Are you opposed to murder?

Begs questions about motives and circumstances.

BlackGriffen

[�]

� thinks that men cannot argue about womens bodies.

[�]

� would like to add that men also cannot argue about what's inside their bodies as well.

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by �:
<STRONG>� thinks that men cannot argue about womens bodies.</STRONG>

You thought wrong.