| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2012 07:50:39 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Comparing living, breathing, walking around enslaved people to a group of cells. |
Sorry Kelli, that statement is reductionist to the absurd. Technically you and I also reduce to a definition of "a group of cells". We just have more. It's not a distinction that carrys any weight. As for the rest, do I even need to go into it? Ability to do things is now a requirement for personhood? That's gonna get you into trouble and you know it. |
Comparing an embryo or a fetus to slavery is pretty reductionist too. |
Technically I was comparing the embryo to an african slave not slavery. ;) Here we have an example of a group of people who at one point were not granted human rights (they were not persons) and then that changed. We can read the history of how it disrupted lives and changed things. Hell, it caused a war. The point is to show that at times we do find it acceptable to impose a moral view (ie. blacks are persons) upon people whom it affects. This, of course, doesn't mean that fetuses should be persons. That's a different argument. It was merely pointing out that Ed and Paul's claim of "imposing your beliefs" upon someone is always bad is false. It is not quite the trump card they think it is and the personhood of blacks being imposed on the south is an excellent example to counter with. I mean think about it. It was imposed at the point of a sword and the end of a gun. How much more forceful can you get?
I give Paul enough credit that I do not think he would say, "Perhaps if the North would have been satisfied with just "thinking" about freeing slaves instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ..."
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 19:53:10. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 08:37:29 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Comparing living, breathing, walking around enslaved people to a group of cells. |
Sorry Kelli, that statement is reductionist to the absurd. Technically you and I also reduce to a definition of "a group of cells". We just have more. It's not a distinction that carrys any weight. As for the rest, do I even need to go into it? Ability to do things is now a requirement for personhood? That's gonna get you into trouble and you know it. |
Comparing an embryo or a fetus to slavery is pretty reductionist too. |
Technically I was comparing the embryo to an african slave not slavery. ;) Here we have an example of a group of people who at one point were not granted human rights (they were not persons) and then that changed. We can read the history of how it disrupted lives and changed things. Hell, it caused a war. The point is to show that at times we do find it acceptable to impose a moral view (ie. blacks are persons) upon people whom it affects. This, of course, doesn't mean that fetuses should be persons. That's a different argument. It was merely pointing out that Ed and Paul's claim of "imposing your beliefs" upon someone is always bad is false. It is not quite the trump card they think it is and the personhood of blacks being imposed on the south is an excellent example to counter with. I mean think about it. It was imposed at the point of a sword and the end of a gun. How much more forceful can you get?
I give Paul enough credit that I do not think he would say, "Perhaps if the North would have been satisfied with just "thinking" about freeing slaves instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ..." |
I know I can't win a war of words with you and I really think your example is apples and oranges, so I'll move on to what I asked before. And this is for anyone, what do people that are anti-abortion plan to do about all the unwanted children born if abortion is ever outlawed? If all the women that are forced to carry to term then give up the unwanted children, who will house them, feed them, cloth them, etc. I know people that actually wanted children but don't/can't take care of them. And what do you do with the women who get illegal abortions? Lock them up for life? Death penalty? |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 09:08:21 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To say the only motivation for being against abortion is religious is fallacy. |
Well, I would have said that being either for or against abortion requires a personal, moral motivation, but I've been told that judging the morality of something is the exclusive purview of religion ... and let's remember that this discussion is supposed to be about impeding access to contraception, which by preventing unwanted pregnancies comprise our most effective way to reduce abortions.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I give Paul enough credit that I do not think he would say, "Perhaps if the North would have been satisfied with just "thinking" about freeing slaves instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ..." |
Thank you, I'm against war in general, though I believe it was the secessionist who fired the first shot ... I probably have been more aligned with the Quaker abolitionists than with (the religious fanatic) John Brown ... |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 09:20:02 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I would frame it differently and say that women, to the greatest extent possible, ought to be in a position where they become pregnant only when they want to become pregnant. Assuming we have the same thing in mind, of course that is a worthy goal to pursue. No one wants to go through this, even if they have no moral qualms about it. If I had to choose a policy goal, I'd focus on reducing elective abortions in the second trimester, because in my opinion the morality gets murkier the more developed the fetus and the closer to viability when there is no medical necessity. That would mean focusing on young girls and giving them better access to contraceptives and better education in a variety of different areas. Now, I hate to be pessimistic, but I know that I have already run into a brick wall with that last suggestion with the folks on your side of this issue. If we couldn't even agree on making contraceptives available to minors, or providing better education about sexuality, how are you going to convince the anti-abortion folks that abortion should remain legal even though they're morally opposed to it? |
I don't know. Next time you have this conversation with someone you can tell them you know a guy who is on their side but he thinks having readily available contraception is much better than having abortions. At least it's a point of compromise. If I'm talking to someone I can say I know a gay that's on their side who says she wants fewer abortions. Would you be willing to have some of these roadblocks like notifications and such if contraception was readily available?
See? We can make at least a modicum of progress even here on Rant. There's hope for the world! |
As it turns out, after looking into it a bit, parental notification and/or consent has the perverse effect of pushing what would otherwise have been 1st trimester abortions into the 2nd trimester. So in terms of advancing my policy goal of reducing 2nd trimester abortions, it would be self-defeating to agree to that type of roadblock, or possibly any roadblock for that matter. But it really doesn't matter, as almost every state in the U.S. has such requirements in place already. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 09:36:14 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To say the only motivation for being against abortion is religious is fallacy. |
Well, I would have said that being either for or against abortion requires a personal, moral motivation, but I've been told that judging the morality of something is the exclusive purview of religion ... and let's remember that this discussion is supposed to be about impeding access to contraception, which by preventing unwanted pregnancies comprise our most effective way to reduce abortions.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I give Paul enough credit that I do not think he would say, "Perhaps if the North would have been satisfied with just "thinking" about freeing slaves instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ..." |
Thank you, I'm against war in general, though I believe it was the secessionist who fired the first shot ... I probably have been more aligned with the Quaker abolitionists than with (the religious fanatic) John Brown ... |
I'll tell you what Paul, if you agree that moral arguments are the exclusive domain of religion I'll give you this one on abortion. Agreed? :) |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 10:12:51 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll tell you what Paul, if you agree that moral arguments are the exclusive domain of religion I'll give you this one on abortion. Agreed? :) |
I can't do that -- I've also been told not to believe everything I'm told ... ;-) |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 12:54:18 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll tell you what Paul, if you agree that moral arguments are the exclusive domain of religion... |
That sound you didn't hear was a group of ladybugs rolling over in their graves. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 05:42:56 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll tell you what Paul, if you agree that moral arguments are the exclusive domain of religion... |
That sound you didn't hear was a group of ladybugs rolling over in their graves. |
+ a gazillion |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 08:27:30 AM · #359 |
| This is still going on? The compromise bill excludes churches, and religious affiliates are neither forced to use contraception nor pay for the coverage directly or indirectly (it's a cost savings), so what's the problem? If anybody other than Achoo and Nullix is still under the ridiculous delusion that opposition to the birth control issue has anything whatsoever to do with religious beliefs against contraception, then where do you suppose the enthusiastic church support went for this bill? |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 09:01:52 AM · #360 |
They can have my condoms when they pry them from my cold, dead, um, no that's not it.
Never mind.
;-) |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 10:40:53 AM · #361 |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 01:02:42 PM · #362 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I know I can't win a war of words with you and I really think your example is apples and oranges, so I'll move on to what I asked before. And this is for anyone, what do people that are anti-abortion plan to do about all the unwanted children born if abortion is ever outlawed? If all the women that are forced to carry to term then give up the unwanted children, who will house them, feed them, cloth them, etc. I know people that actually wanted children but don't/can't take care of them. And what do you do with the women who get illegal abortions? Lock them up for life? Death penalty? |
I know the thread is mellowing out and maybe it is best to let it lie, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions. I have a few thoughts.
First, I don't think you can make moral considerations based on the practical ramifications. The morality of abortion is the morality of it and the outcomes will need to be dealt with. I tried to get at this with the example of slavery and the southern plantation owner. Still, you raise good questions. Second, I personally would still want good support structures and safety nets. I'm not one to want to cut welfare, etc. However, there is a point where personal responsibility does come to bear. It cannot be ignored forever. If one is not in the position to afford/want a baby than it would be incumbent upon them to make sure they are on birth control, have their tubes tied, or close the hoo-ha down for the season. It seems like an obvious solution that nobody seems to want to consider.
As far as penalties for an illegal abortion, those seem like tangential questions and less important. We have enough people in jail in my opinion. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 01:46:28 PM · #363 |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 01:51:08 PM · #364 |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 02:01:28 PM · #365 |
| Mike Luckovich has won a Pulitzer Prize -- he usually has a pretty good (and funny) take on things ... I find it most interesting that his home paper is in Atlanta; not exactly at the top of my list of hotbeds of editorial liberalism. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 03:43:26 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mike Luckovich has won a Pulitzer Prize -- he usually has a pretty good (and funny) take on things ... I find it most interesting that his home paper is in Atlanta; not exactly at the top of my list of hotbeds of editorial liberalism. |
Atlanta seceded from the rest of the Deep South a number of years ago, and became real......
|
|
|
|
02/24/2012 03:52:12 PM · #367 |
| I thought all newspapers were hotbeds of editorial liberalism... ;) |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 04:02:53 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I know I can't win a war of words with you and I really think your example is apples and oranges, so I'll move on to what I asked before. And this is for anyone, what do people that are anti-abortion plan to do about all the unwanted children born if abortion is ever outlawed? If all the women that are forced to carry to term then give up the unwanted children, who will house them, feed them, cloth them, etc. I know people that actually wanted children but don't/can't take care of them. And what do you do with the women who get illegal abortions? Lock them up for life? Death penalty? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know the thread is mellowing out and maybe it is best to let it lie, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions. I have a few thoughts.
First, I don't think you can make moral considerations based on the practical ramifications. The morality of abortion is the morality of it and the outcomes will need to be dealt with. I tried to get at this with the example of slavery and the southern plantation owner. Still, you raise good questions. Second, I personally would still want good support structures and safety nets. I'm not one to want to cut welfare, etc. However, there is a point where personal responsibility does come to bear. It cannot be ignored forever. If one is not in the position to afford/want a baby than it would be incumbent upon them to make sure they are on birth control, have their tubes tied, or close the hoo-ha down for the season. It seems like an obvious solution that nobody seems to want to consider.
As far as penalties for an illegal abortion, those seem like tangential questions and less important. We have enough people in jail in my opinion. |
You have to make some moral considerations based on practical ramifications. Even without addressing the over-population issue, it's still very much something that is happening already. And to add insult to injury by adding to it by demanding that unwanted babies be born, you may be subjecting them to a fate worse than being aborted before they have a cognizant thought. Where's the morality consideration in that? And as for punishment, what *DO* you suggest? If there's nothing to fear as a deterrent, what's the point, and if there is, then you're back to imposing, in a major way, on a woman's autonomy over her body. These points are *not* tangential to this issue.
Here's a thought......why not let God be the judge, and the humans who think they represent Him mind their own lives, instead of other people's......
|
|
|
|
02/24/2012 04:25:28 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I know I can't win a war of words with you and I really think your example is apples and oranges, so I'll move on to what I asked before. And this is for anyone, what do people that are anti-abortion plan to do about all the unwanted children born if abortion is ever outlawed? If all the women that are forced to carry to term then give up the unwanted children, who will house them, feed them, cloth them, etc. I know people that actually wanted children but don't/can't take care of them. And what do you do with the women who get illegal abortions? Lock them up for life? Death penalty? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know the thread is mellowing out and maybe it is best to let it lie, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions. I have a few thoughts.
First, I don't think you can make moral considerations based on the practical ramifications. The morality of abortion is the morality of it and the outcomes will need to be dealt with. I tried to get at this with the example of slavery and the southern plantation owner. Still, you raise good questions. Second, I personally would still want good support structures and safety nets. I'm not one to want to cut welfare, etc. However, there is a point where personal responsibility does come to bear. It cannot be ignored forever. If one is not in the position to afford/want a baby than it would be incumbent upon them to make sure they are on birth control, have their tubes tied, or close the hoo-ha down for the season. It seems like an obvious solution that nobody seems to want to consider.
As far as penalties for an illegal abortion, those seem like tangential questions and less important. We have enough people in jail in my opinion. |
You have to make some moral considerations based on practical ramifications. Even without addressing the over-population issue, it's still very much something that is happening already. And to add insult to injury by adding to it by demanding that unwanted babies be born, you may be subjecting them to a fate worse than being aborted before they have a cognizant thought. Where's the morality consideration in that? And as for punishment, what *DO* you suggest? If there's nothing to fear as a deterrent, what's the point, and if there is, then you're back to imposing, in a major way, on a woman's autonomy over her body. These points are *not* tangential to this issue.
Here's a thought......why not let God be the judge, and the humans who think they represent Him mind their own lives, instead of other people's...... |
Well, they are tangential in the fact I have already said I don't necessarily think abortion should be illegal (even if we consider it wrong). I don't care about the penalties right now. Let's say if it were illegal I would punish the docs and not the moms. How's that?
Having the ends justify the means is a poor method for arriving at a moral position. Over-population would be just as served by infanticide as abortion yet we abhor the former. Do you see my point? And playing future scenario is also not helpful. Perhaps we are dooming someone to an unhappy life, but perhaps we have also aborted the scientist that would have cured cancer and by doing so we have caused much more suffering to remain in the world. It's all conjecture and not helpful at all.
And just cut it with the "stop being imposing" bit. It's soooo tired.
Message edited by author 2012-02-24 16:28:31. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 05:45:21 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I know I can't win a war of words with you and I really think your example is apples and oranges, so I'll move on to what I asked before. And this is for anyone, what do people that are anti-abortion plan to do about all the unwanted children born if abortion is ever outlawed? If all the women that are forced to carry to term then give up the unwanted children, who will house them, feed them, cloth them, etc. I know people that actually wanted children but don't/can't take care of them. And what do you do with the women who get illegal abortions? Lock them up for life? Death penalty? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know the thread is mellowing out and maybe it is best to let it lie, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions. I have a few thoughts.
First, I don't think you can make moral considerations based on the practical ramifications. The morality of abortion is the morality of it and the outcomes will need to be dealt with. I tried to get at this with the example of slavery and the southern plantation owner. Still, you raise good questions. Second, I personally would still want good support structures and safety nets. I'm not one to want to cut welfare, etc. However, there is a point where personal responsibility does come to bear. It cannot be ignored forever. If one is not in the position to afford/want a baby than it would be incumbent upon them to make sure they are on birth control, have their tubes tied, or close the hoo-ha down for the season. It seems like an obvious solution that nobody seems to want to consider.
As far as penalties for an illegal abortion, those seem like tangential questions and less important. We have enough people in jail in my opinion. |
You have to make some moral considerations based on practical ramifications. Even without addressing the over-population issue, it's still very much something that is happening already. And to add insult to injury by adding to it by demanding that unwanted babies be born, you may be subjecting them to a fate worse than being aborted before they have a cognizant thought. Where's the morality consideration in that? And as for punishment, what *DO* you suggest? If there's nothing to fear as a deterrent, what's the point, and if there is, then you're back to imposing, in a major way, on a woman's autonomy over her body. These points are *not* tangential to this issue.
Here's a thought......why not let God be the judge, and the humans who think they represent Him mind their own lives, instead of other people's...... |
Well, they are tangential in the fact I have already said I don't necessarily think abortion should be illegal (even if we consider it wrong). I don't care about the penalties right now. Let's say if it were illegal I would punish the docs and not the moms. How's that?
Having the ends justify the means is a poor method for arriving at a moral position. Over-population would be just as served by infanticide as abortion yet we abhor the former. Do you see my point? And playing future scenario is also not helpful. Perhaps we are dooming someone to an unhappy life, but perhaps we have also aborted the scientist that would have cured cancer and by doing so we have caused much more suffering to remain in the world. It's all conjecture and not helpful at all.
And just cut it with the "stop being imposing" bit. It's soooo tired. |
Actually infanticide is happening. Here and now on a regular basis. How many stories a week do you read about some teenager/young woman abandoning a newborn in a box/bag/toilet/garbage bin? It's not rare by any means. How many children are beaten to death on a regular basis? I swear I read stories like this in just the local news every week. I think abortion might have been the better option.
As for the overpopulation and infanticide, just check out the pictures of the starving babies in third world countries. I also think in those cases abortions would have been kinder. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:23:46 PM · #371 |
Well, if you are ok with that Kelli then that's on you. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", am I right? If you don't recognize the quote that's the Supreme Court backing up your position. But they took it one step further. If an abortion is better than a starving child then no pregnancy is even better and they supported the forcible sterilization of women deemed unfit to have children. You'll have to grapple with why your position should stop at the abortion and not at the sterilization...
" It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
Personally that makes me shiver...
Message edited by author 2012-02-24 18:31:19. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:33:04 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if you are ok with that Kelli then that's on you. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", am I right? |
No. You're not right. I never said anything of the kind.
Like I've said before, neither side will ever change the other's mind about what's right and what's wrong. The thing is one side just wants to be left in peace to make their own decisions, while the other side wants to force their morality down the throats of those that don't agree with them. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:36:36 PM · #373 |
| And I have no need to grapple with my opinion. I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do. And that's the difference between the two sides. I have no problem with a mentally challenged person having a child that they want. And I have no problem with a teenager deciding to get an abortion rather than be stuck with a child she doesn't want, and most likely won't take care of. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:37:09 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if you are ok with that Kelli then that's on you. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", am I right? |
No. You're not right. I never said anything of the kind.
Like I've said before, neither side will ever change the other's mind about what's right and what's wrong. The thing is one side just wants to be left in peace to make their own decisions, while the other side wants to force their morality down the throats of those that don't agree with them. |
Once again the "force down your throat" bit. The plantation owners wish you were there for their cause!
If you think about it, you said exactly as much. You said that you see a starving child and think it would have been better to abort them. You are declaring that you are fit to decide what level of living is worth living. The Supreme Court thought they could decide the exact same thing. Why would you want a degenerate mother? You are just going to wind up in jail or starve.
I know you don't really mean these things, but you need to understand the consequences of what you say. Interestingly, believe it or not, that Supreme Court decision was 8-1. Eight to friggin one! The only dissent? A devout Catholic... |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 06:42:12 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I don't believe in forcing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do. |
I don't want to let my slaves go says the Alabama farmer...
You believe in forcing people to do things just fine when you agree with what is being imposed...
Message edited by author 2012-02-24 18:42:56. |
|
