I seem to recall more than one pro-life poster saying that they would vote for a pro-life candidate in all or nearly all circumstances, even if they agreed with the pro-choice candidate on most other issues. Being the bored and cynical person I am, I was wondering if this would be at all useful for my own political goals. So...
Imagine a candidate or party with two main issues of equal importance.
1. Making all abortions illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. (This would be an easier sell than no abortions period.)
2. The complete repeal of all current drug laws, with the new standard being that all legal adults may possess, purchase, sell (to other adults), distribute (to other adults), ingest, and be under the influence of any drug. This would include THC, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, MDMA, heroin, PCP, diphenhydramine, etc.
Both these positions would be sincerely held. Would you vote for the candidate and/or party?
Edit: Why or why not?
Second edit: one class of drugs that would be regulated would be antibiotics. The reasoning behind this is that a person who uses most drugs helps or harms only himself, but a person who uses antibiotics unnecessarily can have a negative effect upon others.
[ July 01, 2004, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
YES.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I'd vote for a pro-life lesbian socialist before I'd vote for a Republican who wanted to preserve abortion on demand.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What do you mean by pro-life? I know until I was about 30 I thought that term applied to those who opposed abortion, but it finally got into my stubborn head that the only real pro-lifers out there are people who oppose the death penalty AND abortion. I don't think there are any candidates who are really pro-life, why can't there just be a death party and a life party? Innocence and guilt are too subjective in human eyes, that distinction is reserved for God.
[ July 01, 2004, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, I was using it in the more common sense, but I suppose being anti-death penalty might get the vote of some anti-drug leftists...
But the two main planks of the party platform would be those listed.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
BrianM, to condemn people who are against killing of innocent babies because they happen to support executing a mass murderer is hardly fair.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
And that's the usual reason I vote republican, but the death penalty is not a foolproof system. My ultimate party choice would be to have a party that did not allow abortion or the death penalty. Must I invoke Sir Blackstone? What do you tell to the family of an innocent person executed? That their sacrafice was worth it because it made people fear the government more??? No sinner is beyond redemption, and I think I will soon believe 100% that murder of any means regardless the sinner (remember, we have *all* sinned) is not any worse or better than another.
[ July 01, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I would not vote for that candidate, since I would disagree with their drug policy, and I feel that it could do serious harm to our society. However, I would not ever vote for a pro abortion candidate either. If I had to I would vote for a 3rd party candidate, or do a write in.
As for the death penalty, I am against it in almost all cases. The only situations are cases where the person has committed many murders, the courts are 100% sure he/she committed the crime, and the person is still a threat to society.
For example I have seen serial killers say (in interviews) that if they got out of prison they would kill again. People who have no respect for life are a continued threat to other prisoners, guards, and the general public (in the case of an escape). Another example would be someone like Hitler. Everyone knows exactly what he did...plus he would be a continued threat as there are nuts who would try to get him out of prison to allow him to continue his killing. Saddam would be another example.
In these kinds of cases the death penalty is a sort of defense...to protect people from the person. I don't agree with using death as a punishment...or as a deterrent.
That being said, unlike abortion I will not refuse to vote for someone because they agree with the death penalty in its current form. The majority of Americans are pro death penalty...so it is not surprising that few agree with me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I am pro-choice and pro-Death Penalty.
Cynicism to the contrary, I do believe there is a difference between the two.
-Trevor
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
TMedina, we should probably chat sometime. As someone who shares similar beliefs to yours, it might be enlightening to discuss the issues. I'm living in Kansas, and my current social circles are heavily ANTI-CHOICE conservatives. Ya know, the debate just goes in circles after a while That, or I'm just tired of debating the issues, and it'd be a relief to discuss them.
Oh, and on the topic of the thread: I'm all for freedom of choice. That doesn't mean I love abortion or that I eat babies on the holidays. I'm a guy who has no place seriously telling women what to do on the issue.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Lupus, why do you disagree with their drug policy? Do you feel that current anti-drug policies are working?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I would not vote for that candidate.
Personally, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and very, very rare. I don't think sending women back to the back-alley abortionists and coat hangers is a particularly pro-life thing to do. And I don't trust politicians who claim to be against abortion but say they would allow it in cases of rape or incest. I can guarantee that the red tape to get one of those exceptional abortions would be so thick that by the time the woman got through all of it, the baby would be a year old. And I do not believe that a woman should be forced against her will to carry such a pregnancy (from rape or incest) to term.
Secondly, I do not support the idea that all drugs should be legalized.
So, basically, I don't support the candidate's position on either issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I probably wouldn't vote for the candidate with those views, since I don't think one candidate is enough to get pro-life bills passed.
I would take the tradeoff in a minute if some weird choice presented it somehow (i.e., legalize drugs and abortion on demand will be outlawed).
As for the drug policy, I might be open to legalizing some drugs for recreational use, but not allowing just anyone to sell it. I would want some training required, serious liability insurance, and a tax going to rehab.
Plus, what's happening to the tobacco industry would have to be fair game for sellers of other addictive drugs.
Dagonee
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Well, Tstorm, what if it was your kid? Do you not have the right because it's her body, even though it's your child, too?
The current abortion policy is unfair to men. If a woman decides to keep the baby, you have no choice but to pay for it. If the woman kills the baby, you have no choice. How dare we as a society tell men to be more involved in their families and then make them all but slaves to a woman's whim. We tell men what terrible people they are for not taking an active role in their families, but we tell them the decision to create the family isn't theirs.
The only decision a man can make is to wear a condom and carefully choose who he sleeps with. That's the message we as a society should really be pushing.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The only decision a man can make is to wear a condom and carefully choose who he sleeps with. That's the message we as a society should really be pushing.
What's wrong with just telling a man he should avoid having sex outside of a monogamous marriage? (not instead of what you said, but in addition to)
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* While I'm anti-abortion, myself, and generally pro-legalization, I wouldn't consider basing my vote on those two relatively marginal and unimportant issues alone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...only real pro-lifers out there are people who oppose the death penalty AND abortion.
Because, of course, there is no real moral difference between an innocent baby (which is how many anti-abortion people view it) and a murderer / rapist / molester, etc.
As for innocence and guilt, those are judged by God ultimately, yes. But before that ultimate judgement, we people have to make do.
Who are you to say who a 'real' pro-lifer is? Besides BrianM, I mean.
----------
I would not vote for either candidate, because I think both stances are too extreme and unyielding to be good laws. Even though I have deep problems with the current system governing both questions.
Also, I'd have to find out what that candidate thought on other less abstract issues.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'd have serious doubts about the candidate. I'd have to get out my statistics, find out how many people die currently from overdoses, drug-related accidents, and so forth, and try to work out how much that might go up if more people were doing it. Because, contrary to what someone said, drug use does harm more than the user. Don't try that line on anyone who's had a drunk driver kill family members; it's not like driving stoned is any easier. In the end, though, I might decide it was worth it. People always say you can't weigh lives, but sometimes you really have no choice but to try.
I also hear people saying the government shouldn't tell women what to do. But the fact is, the government is here precisely to tell us what to do, and to enforce that telling. Ideally, it should do so as little as possible, but matters of life and death are precisely where most intervention is needed. Let no one kid you: abortion is a matter of life and death. No one has the right to make those choices for the innocent.
Abortion can never be safe, legal, and rare. Nothing anyone might desire, for any common reason, can be safe, legal, and rare. Ambition is not rare. Poverty is not rare. Pressure from other people is not rare. Therefore as long as abortion is safe and legal it will be terrifyingly common. For the sake of the children being killed, it must be made illegal. If it becomes unsafe in the process, all the more reason to be certain the laws are enforced.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I don't have a position.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- I'm not sure how the state-approved deaths of thousands of children can be considered a marginal or unimportant issue.
Can you explain this point of view to me?
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I'm so pro-life, I'm pro-choice.
I believe that ALL women should be able to choose life: Their life, where they can grow up to an age where they can bring children into the world properly, instead of dropping out of school and ruining their life to support a child they should have had ten years later.
But then again this is my motto on a lot of issues: It should be legal, but you shouldn't do it.
In other words, if "pro-lifers" really wanted to stop abortion, they should be teaching people to use condoms and absitinance. They should be trying to eliminate the NEED for abortion instead of abortion itself.
If you had a time machine, and wanted to stop Hitler from taking power, and get the Versailes treaty makers to ease off Germany, don't assassinate Hitler.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I believe that ALL women should be able to choose life: Their life, where they can grow up to an age where they can bring children into the world properly, instead of dropping out of school and ruining their life to support a child they should have had ten years later.
So women are no longer able to say "no" to sex?
Hobbes Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Tom-- I'm not sure how the state-approved deaths of thousands of children can be considered a marginal or unimportant issue.
Because those aren't children, they're simply chunks of meat that could eventaully become a human?
Exactly, Hobbes. We all know that women have no choice but to have sex. It is, after all, their right.
[ July 01, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Tell me how to get people to frickin' listen, ArCHeR, and it might be worth our while. So far, all indications are that teenagers pay virtually no attention to the media campaigns about drugs, sex, and so on--and apparently their parents don't either or are just as inept at conveying the message.
In the meantime, until we figure out how to make it work, we need strict abortion laws. Treating causes instead of symptoms is a good idea, but not very helpful when the symptoms will kill you before the treatment does any good.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Well, Tstorm, what if it was your kid? Do you not have the right because it's her body, even though it's your child, too?
The current abortion policy is unfair to men. If a woman decides to keep the baby, you have no choice but to pay for it.
I don't like to play the "what if" game. I'll answer all those silly situations the same way: the choice should be available to people in the situation. You may not choose it. I might not get into the situation. It's acceptable to me, however, for the option to be available to other people.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
The symptoms aren't killing you, and as far as any medical expert can say, it's not killing anything. The actual abortion isn't what's wrong. It's the fact that people have abortions. IF the fetus is living, it hasn't sinned, so it's going to heaven, right? If it's not alive, then there's no death anyway.
And in a lot of abortion cases, the women DID say no. She HAD to have sex. It's called rape, and I'm pretty sure it's the leading cause of abortion. I don't have the statistics handy.
And I didn't have pre-marital sex. A lot of people haven't. Something's working somewhere. People are getting it. We just need to find out what it was.
Maybe it all has to do with education. Show people the consequences, not just that they shouldn't do it.
The Bible does a great job of the opposite, but it doesn't really go into why you shouldn't do these things besides the standard "if you do, you'll go to hell."
But standing outside abortion clinics and calling the people going there whores isn't going to do anything but traumatize these women.
Another thing anti-abortionists don't seem to get is that there are a lot of VERY valid reasons to have an abortion. Try these on for size:
Rape Emminent death of the mother Suffering of the baby if it's brought to term (prime example: conjoined twins who would die in agony days after the birth)
I would say something about women who can't support the child if it's born, but you'll just say adoption, and I'll just say the adoption system is already overflowing, mainly because the same people who are against abortion are against giving children to a good home simply because the adopting parents are gay.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ahhh, "what if."
It would suck to be me. As much as I may want something to happen or not to happen, as the case may be, the simple fact of the matter remains that it's not my body. I cannot force a woman to endure 9 months of hell and the subsequent physical and emotional turmoil if she doesn't want to participate. Having a child, as many of you know, is a life-altering decision and that's not even touching on the "passing a bowling ball" phase.
No, it's not fair if she decides to have the kid and I don't want to. It's not particularly fair that I am made to support the child when I didn't want a child.
But I knew it was a risk when I slid Tab A into Slot B. Was I wearing a condom? Was she on birth control? Those help skew the numbers, but nothing is 100% effective, short of abstinence. And, if the Christians are right, not even then.
What's that inane phrase my mother used to chant? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
-Trevor
Edit: And I'm not even touching on the religion issue. Didn't one school of thought assert that nobody is without sin? The sins of the father, etc.
[ July 01, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Catholics believe you MUST be baptized, but I'm wondering: what sin can babies have? That they don't believe in God because they can't even understand the concept? My belief is that God judges you based on what you would have done in life. IE: Even if an atheist gets killed when he's 20, if he had survived and repented later in life, he would go to heaven. But I also know I don't know, so I just trust God to send people where they belong.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:What we would have done in life.
So much for free will.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And in a lot of abortion cases, the women DID say no. She HAD to have sex. It's called rape, and I'm pretty sure it's the leading cause of abortion. I don't have the statistics handy.
WRONG! Even if every rape victim became pregnant, and everyone had an abortion, that would account for less than 35% of abortions (354,670 in 1995, over 1 million abortions per year). Of course, the vast majority of rape victims don't become pregnant, and some who do don't have abortions.
I believe the figure is less than 2% (again from memory). It's sure as hell not the leading cause of abortion. If you actually care about persuading people, you leave yourself open to outright dismissal with such ridiculous claims.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But I knew it was a risk when I slid Tab A into Slot B. Was I wearing a condom? Was she on birth control? Those help skew the numbers, but nothing is 100% effective, short of abstinence. And, if the Christians are right, not even then.
What's that inane phrase my mother used to chant? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
That's kind of the pro-life argument, you choose to do it, you took the risk, now deal with the repercussions.
Hobbes Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hobbes, you conveniently didn't add the bit about educating about artificial birth control and abstinence, huh?
-Bok
EDIT: This is about Archer's original statement.
[ July 01, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I said I didn't have the figures in front of me, but I remember seeing some sort of pie chart during the presentation of our senior projects last year, which was of 2002 I think. I might be getting my numbers crossed. Either way, the majority of abortions aren't just "I don't want to have a baby." Most of them are "I can't have this baby."
quote:So much for free will.
Why? God will judge you on what you would have chosen to do. If God knows everything, he certainly knows that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[EDIT: this is directed at Bok]
Huh? I honestly don't know what you're talking about... but if you want to know if I support sex-ed (beyond abstinence) then I do... but I really don't know if that has anything to do with what you're talking about.
Hobbes
[ July 01, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Just what medical experts are you referring to, anyway?
quote: as far as any medical expert can say, it's not killing anything
Because they're not all on your side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I said I didn't have the figures in front of me, but I remember seeing some sort of pie chart during the presentation of our senior projects last year, which was of 2002 I think. I might be getting my numbers crossed. Either way, the majority of abortions aren't just "I don't want to have a baby." Most of them are "I can't have this baby."
Not if by "I can't have this baby" you mean rape, incest, life or physical harm to the mother, and/or severe birth defects. This is all the traditional "hard cases," and most of them aren't a very good reason to kill a child anyway.
The rest, even severe economic hardship, equates to "I don't want to have a baby."
You're rape numbers are so far off that all your statistics are untrustworthy.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Hobbes - you can use similar arguments for a lot of things.
However, while I agree that a man being required to support a child he didn't want is wrong although legal, I find the prospect of forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want to be a far greater wrong.
As to God and pre-destiny.
I would accept that God, being all-knowing and all-seeing, knows all possible outcomes, but if He(?) already knows what _will_ happen, not what is likely to happen, then everything I do is already cast in stone.
Which makes everything a pointless exercise in destiny and pre-determination.
-Trevor
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
If we allow mothers to kill their fetuses, ergo we should force fathers to decide during the first three months (or whatever the abortion period is) whether or not they will support the baby.
It seems the only *just* thing to do.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Provided we accept that it is, indeed killing.
And I'll grant the fathers _shouldn't_ be required to support the child if he doesn't want to as the "reasonable personal responsibility" clause applies equally to the woman as the man.
Provided, of course, the sex was consentual and there are no other mitigating circumstances.
-Trevor
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Between 1%(pro-life claim) and 3%(pro-choice claim) of all abortions are performed because of physical danger to either the mother or the fetus.
Less than 1% are because of rape or incest(both sides agree).
So only 96%-98% of all abortions are preformed for convenience. Only, heh.
quote: Tom-- I'm not sure how the state-approved deaths of thousands of children can be considered a marginal or unimportant issue.
See, I thought the same thing as Tom did, that neither issue alone would swing my vote. For me, it's because my anti-abortion stance stems from reasons of responsibility and accountability, rather than woe because many children are dying.
[ July 01, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Frisco, those are the numbers I recall, but I can't find the source. There was a study fairly well accepted by both sides in the 90s, but I can't find it.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Provided we accept that it is, indeed killing.
And I'll grant the fathers _shouldn't_ be required to support the child if he doesn't want to as the "reasonable personal responsibility" clause applies equally to the woman as the man.
Provided, of course, the sex was consentual and there are no other mitigating circumstances.
You kill living organisms. That's different than murder. No one who knows even the smallest amount of science can deny that the fetus is alive.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
This was the only page I could find in my internet history (I had this debate, again, just a few days ago).
I think they're more on the liberal side (got the link from Planned Parenthood), but they were still enough to depress me.
fixed. damn UBB...
[ July 01, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Link doesn't work...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Right.
That's the end of my merry-go-round ride - enjoy the view.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did people also read the links I pointed to a bit ago in another thread that showed abortions most likely weren't less per capita historically, and that illegal abortions had a significantly higher rate of death/injury to the mother?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Frisco. That is depressing. Looks pretty reliable, at least for a pro-lifer to use, since it seems to come from a pro-choice group.
I'll try to research this group's credentials.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, I did. Even if those statistics are true, it doesn't affect my position except to say we need education on the dangers of illegal abortions when abortions are outlawed.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hobbes, basically, you cherry picked a statement by Archer and made a smarmy rejoinder to, even though the answer to that rejoinder was later in the same post by Archer (the "condoms and abstinence" statement). You set up a straw man, as a joke or deliberate mischaracterization, I couldn't tell.
No big deal, but it seemed condescending to me.
-Bok
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Did I read that right? It looked to me (when I finally managed to get ahold of the presentation--it didn't want to load) like only a tiny fraction of abortions are from the key scenarios pro-choice advocates are so hot to protect abortion for--and then Trevor promptly bowed out.
Did I misunderstand something?
[ July 01, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Either you say abortions AND contraceptives should be illegal, or you say they both should be legal.
Either you're a Christian and you're against the death penalty, or you only follow Jesus when he agrees with you and you're for it.
Either you eat meat, or you don't eat at all.
Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Even if those statistics are true, it doesn't affect my position except to say we need education on the dangers of illegal abortions when abortions are outlawed.
Dag, this is just speculation, of course, but I would suspect that education about the dangers of illegal abortion wouldn't deter that many people from having illegal abortions. It seems to me that people who are willing to have an abortion despite the fact that it is illegal probably feel strongly enough that it is necessary that they would also be willing to risk the physical danger.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Okay, ArCHeR, I especially didn't get the last "either-or". Is that supposed to mean something directly, or is it an attack on either-or arguments?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Fair enough Bok, I can defaintly see how my response could look that way, so I apologize for that, and say that I certainly did mean it that way. The reason I said anything was that his big point seemed to be on the assumption that abortion was the only way women could choose if they could have children or not, he did go on to weaken that as his base (by talking about other options for preventing unwanted children like birth control) but since it does seem to be such a big argument for the pro-choice side I figured I'd call him on it, and even if he said that's not what he meant, he's not the only one I've heard (hear at Hatrack) make that argument. I apologize for sounding condescending, I do try to keep the my level of discourse up to Hatrack standereds and I feel really bad when I fail.
Hobbes Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
It certainly looks like, according to that site, pro-life protests and cutting off government funding are effective ways of preventing abortions. Nice to know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Archer, you're choices are all ridiculous. It's not even worth refuting them.
quote:Dag, this is just speculation, of course, but I would suspect that education about the dangers of illegal abortion wouldn't deter that many people from having illegal abortions. It seems to me that people who are willing to have an abortion despite the fact that it is illegal probably feel strongly enough that it is necessary that they would also be willing to risk the physical danger.
You may be right. Still doesn't change my position, though.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ah, Hobbes - you were referring to me?
You're right - women bear an equal burden in responsible behavior. If you're not on the pill and he doesn't want to wear a condom, say no. STDs being what they are, I think pregnancy is only one of several complications.
But personal responsibility doesn't eliminate abortion as an option - in fact, one could argue that abortion is the more responsible than trying to have a child that you are unable or incapable of taking care of. That, however, is a can of worms for another time.
My minor tirade on personal responsibility was my interpretation on a man's behavior in the hypothetical scenario of: Woman is having child and Man does not want child.
In this scenario, the Man cannot force the Woman to have an abortion any more than he can force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
Is it a perfectly balanced equation? No - as women bear a disproportionate share of the experience, I'm willing to concede the decision should be weighted in their decision.
-Trevor
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Archer, don't be an extremist. Just because two situations seem similiar doesn't mean they're identical.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
TM, not really reffering to you, but I guess I could've been inderictly. I agree that abortion is one more choice for the women to take to avoid having a child, I just don't think it's necessary. Except in cases of rape (in which I think abortion is acceptable) the women had plently of choices beforehand, and whenever I hear the argument that outlawing non-base types of abortion (my version of health risks and rape) would some how keep them from choosing if they have a child seem a bit ridiculous to me.
[EDIT: It could be argued, but I would never argue it that way. What about adoption?]
Hobbes
[ July 01, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hobbes, half the reason, in discussions like this, that you come accross that way, I think, is the smiley at the end of your signature. Especially when it seems so earnest in all the fluff/fun threads
-Bok
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Come across which way? I hope you meant in a good way...
Hobbes Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think Arcger does raise an interesting point though... If abortions were restricted by law, wouldn't the next step be to try and push for abstinence-only birth control? Isn't that what Bush/his administration tried to do on a limited basis, via funding efforts?
There's always a fair amount of fear that if same-sex marriage is recognized, then incest/bestiality/polygamy is next... Is not this a similar situation? There is a limited indication that some (including those with power) would prefer to bring an abstinence-only situation to the US, much as same-sex marriage opponents point to some vocal fringe polygamy groups as the next inevitable step?
So why don't we pro-choice folks get that issue addressed respectfully (or even better, have both cases of tangential issues dropped as serious defects)?
-Bok
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:abortion on demand.
...is that like Bush's muslim murder on demand?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: If abortions were restricted by law, wouldn't the next step be to try and push for abstinence-only birth control?
Personally, that's never crossed my mind. I say, have all the sex you want and be ready to accept the natural consequences.
I'd actually be in favor of supporting research for a reversible, 100% effective birth control.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh Lord, we're going there.
I've always defined acceptable sexual practice (no jokes, please) as interaction between consenting adults.
Violate either requirement: Adults or Consenting and it's against the law.
If homosexuals want to be as miserable as Heterosexual couples, more power to them. The instant marriage was given legal standing, it cannot be denied to interested parties that do not necessarily conform to the popular, yet informal, standard.
Hell, technically I see nothing wrong with polygamy, if the participants are willing. And no, I'm not interested - I have enough trouble spending quality time with one woman. Why would I want to listen to two women talk to me about decorating and fashion statements? Although, they could talk to each other...hmmm...I think we have a good idea here after all...
-Trevor
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
If you're going to make abortion illegal, and contraceptives illegal, then you need to either start preparing for a an enormous boom in unwanted pregnancies, or get out the knife and start castrating kids now.
I will never understand why so many of those who are against abortion don't see sex ed and widely available contraceptives as the answer. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Bok, I accept that as a completely calid concern. So if you tell me that a serious reason for you being against abortion, here's what I can say:
1) Like I've already said, I respect that as a reason to be fearful of making abortion against the law. 2) I personally, while being pro-life, would not have any desire to pursue that (and would vote against such laws). I obviously, can only speak for myself, but take it for what you will. 3) I feel that while this is a reason to not illeailize abortion, it is not as strong as the reasons to do it, and so I am still pro-life, though I admit that the choice is not 100% one sided (though I would argue that it is still pretty darn weighted towards pro-life, obviously that's just me).
Hobbes Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Moral issues not being considered, abstinence has a lot going for it.
Otherwise, you're just playing with Russian Roulette. Anyone want to make a "cocking the hammer" joke?
That being said, I'm not demanding, lecturing or insisting how you live or how you conduct your affairs (ahem) - simply outlining the possible consequences of various actions.
-Trevor
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I will never understand why so many of those who are against abortion don't see sex ed and widely available contraceptives as the answer.
Most anti-abortion advocates are that way for religious reasons.
The same reasons they are anti-premarital sex. They're campaigning for their version of an ideal world.
83% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women.
That's not the view I have, as a pro-lifer, but that should help you understand. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Zeugma, from my end of things (I can't speak for the Catholics, who hold a different view), I'm theoretically willing for that to happen, but I also believe that extramarital sex is immoral--just not quite as bad. I can't see an increase in teen sexual activity as a good thing, only a lesser evil at best. We'd much rather see kids taught to avoid sexual activity entirely. I, at least, am willing to accept the lesser evil if I must, but I'm not surprised that there are people who won't.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Debating religious issues tends to fall apart as faith and logic rarely see eye to eye.
-Trevor
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Travor, while I think that there are a lot of trivial religious laws, there are also many that are grounded in basic human morality.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Would please define for me "basic human morality?"
-Trevor
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Yeah, I know the reasoning, Frisco, but I still don't understand it. I mean, a whole lot of well-meaning Christian parents aren't even able to keep their own kids from engaging in pre-marital sex, after over a decade of indoctrinating them into their beliefs. Teen sex and premarital sex are here to stay, and taking away the only methods of making them safer can only harm our society.
You can tell me all you want that the sky shouldn't be blue, that if we just tell it not to be blue, and start up a new government-funded program to ban nitrogen from the skies, it'll turn red like God intended.... but you wouldn't get my vote.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:ba·sic adj.
1. Of, relating to, or forming a base; fundamental.
2. Of, being, or serving as a starting point or basis.
quote:hu·man n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
quote:mo·ral·i·ty n.
pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote: se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks) n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Everyone, I don't want this to be a same-sex marriage thread. We have 30 million of those here Or you can start another! I was just pointing out a parallel (of slippery slopes, it would seem) in argumentation.
Anyway, my opinion is more based off of potentiality of the embryo, and the reality that some people flat-out don't believe a fetus is a living being in any meaningful way, up until a certain point (my fiancee, for one). I feel that they should be legal and rare, that we'd cut down on unwanted pregnancies if we spent a ton of money on sex-ed (of the "here's how the human reproductive system works from men and women" type), and birth control options, including abstinence (of which I was a 25 year, 10 month practitioner). I think that the difference between making it illegal by presuming something (fetus=life) that many disagree with, is a worse option than legalizing/regulating it, and allowing those that believe a fetus == life to not get abortions and to pursue non-violent avenues to convince others likewise, via education of other options and the like.
Are there flaws with my stance? Surely. It likely has untended/unwanted ramification when stretched in an analogy, but there it is.
-Bok
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bravo Frisco, well done.
Do you work for Microsoft, by chance?
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think Arcger does raise an interesting point though... If abortions were restricted by law, wouldn't the next step be to try and push for abstinence-only birth control? Isn't that what Bush/his administration tried to do on a limited basis, via funding efforts?
There's always a fair amount of fear that if same-sex marriage is recognized, then incest/bestiality/polygamy is next... Is not this a similar situation? There is a limited indication that some (including those with power) would prefer to bring an abstinence-only situation to the US, much as same-sex marriage opponents point to some vocal fringe polygamy groups as the next inevitable step?
So why don't we pro-choice folks get that issue addressed respectfully (or even better, have both cases of tangential issues dropped as serious defects)?
As someone who has accepted the polygamy argument as valid and given reasons why legalizing same-sex civil marriage does not logically mean we must legalize polygamy, I'll go ahead and do the same here.
It is true that the larges pro-life organization in the U.S., the Catholic Church, is also against birth control. However, the two moral stances do not necessarily imply the same legal treatment.
For every action, there's a continuity for where it falls on the legality spectrum, from morally bad enough to require criminal sanctions, morally bad enough to require legal discouragement short of criminal sanctions, morally bad but not requiring legal discouragement, morally neutral, morally good but not requiring government encouragment, morally good but requiring government encouragment, and morally good but requiring government provision for it. The pro-life position is that abortion is wrong enough that it belongs in the first category. My justification is that the moral wrongness of abortion stems from the fact that it is murder, and murder deserves the most severe legal sanction.
The reason for Catholic teaching on birth control (and ignore disputes over potential obortificient effects of some methods - let's say they all just prevent conception) is totally different. While the Church considers the modern view of sexuality to be a great moral wrong, it is not a wrong that causes direct, preventable harm to a non-consenting party, and so does not require the harshest legal sanction.
The funding issue is a little tricky. In the Catholic perspective, birth control is a great enough wrong that committing it is not even justified to reduce abortion (ends and means and all that). So it would naturally discourage government funding.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I wouldn't vote for the candidate simply b/c I believe that abortions should be legal in other cases. Before jumping on my case, please note that this does NOT mean that I dis-believe in birth control, saying "no", or being responsible.
I would, however, support the legalization of certain drugs - namely pot. I think we spend too much money trying to keep it out, and I truly don't see much of a difference btw. it and drinking.
space opera
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dag, I'm curious: what is your stance on contraception in general, and on the pill in specific?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know on the pill - I've heard that it can prevent implantation, which would effectively mean it's killing an embryo. I do not know enough of the science to judge on the subject.
As to birth control in general, I'm leery of the idea of treating a woman's fertility as if it were a disorder to be controlled. However, I'm also leery of people having children they're unprepared for. Personally, I'm not sure exactly how we're going to handle things.
From a legal perspective, I don't think it should be outlawed. As far as government support, it makes me uncomfortable for the government to be supporting irresponsible behavior (and contraception alone is not enough to make sex responsible). If someone presented me with a bill that banned abortion except in rape/incest/physical health of the mother but funded a system of birth control clinics, I'd sign it as a compromise.
From a marital perspective, I see a lot of benefits to keeping sex connected to it's principle purpose. But that's an individual decision, not one for government.
In other words, I don't have a clear position.
Dagonee Edit: I do think birth control has contributed to some very unhealthy ideas about women in general. Not from the "barefoot and pregnant" perspective; from the "fertility is a women's business and men can safely ignore it because there's a little pill." It's a respect issue.
Further edit: In other other words, I'm not immune from the fears that birth control can help assuage. I have the same problem with money, for that matter.
[ July 01, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Dag, your comment/thought about how "men can safely ignore it" got me to thinking. My husband and I have actually talked about this extensively. I do think that men need (and hopefully most want) to take more responsibility about birth control so that it's not always the woman's worry. However, when Mr. Opera and I were discussing a pill for men, I had to admit that there is no way I would want him taking it. The reason being? Well, I don't feel comfortable about relying on anyone else (even him) to take a pill. It's my body that would have to carry a baby if he forgot, and for some reason I can't imagine giving someone else the total responsibility for something that could affect me so dramatically.
space opera
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I would vote for another party there. Even though I'm very pro-life, and am indifferent to legalising some drugs ( seems silly to me to send someone to jail for growing pot in their backyard, but I have no compelling interest in legalising either.) But the legalising of hard drugs bothers me.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I don't know on the pill - I've heard that it can prevent implantation, which would effectively mean it's killing an embryo. I do not know enough of the science to judge on the subject.
This is actually the heart of what I wanted to discuss on that matter. There are two different pills: a progesterone-only pill, and a progesterone-estrogen combination pill. The progesterone-only pill works by preventing implantation, whereas the combination pill does that as well as preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. In either case, there is a chance that a fertilized embryo is being prevented from implantation. In the case of the progesterone-only pill the chance is higher, as that is the only mechanism it uses to prevent pregnancy.
(Much of what follows, Dag, is not very applicable to or answerable by you, so feel free to skip the rest if you like.)
I have talked to a number of people who are against abortion but don't have a problem with the pill. The question in that case comes down to at what point you believe life begins. After the first trimester? After implantation? After fertilization? If a person is willing to draw the line somewhere, why one place rather than another?
The most common reasoning I've heard for anti-abortion types not havnig a problem with the pill is that a first-trimester fetus is much, much more viable than a fertilized egg is. Lots of fertilized eggs fail to implant even without birth control. So it's a question of probability. Both abortion and the pill are ending the possibility of a human life. There's no question about that, regardless of whether or not you think that abortion is murder.
This raises--to me, anyway--an interesting question: if it's really a question not of ending an actual life, but a question of ending the possibility of life, and if a line can be drawn in one place, why not another? How far up the chain can we go? In that case, are condoms immoral? Masturbation? After all, in both cases, the possibility of life is ended. With sperm the answer becomes more ambiguous, as sperm cells die and are produced all the time within the testes, and even in sex for reproduction, most of the sperm don't end up fertilizing an egg anyway. But then what about eggs? If a woman completes a menstrual cycle without attempting to have a child, that egg is gone; a possibility at life is ended.
Don't mistake me; I'm not trying to engage in hyperbole or some kind of slippery slope argument. I really am curious what separates one situation from another. Moreover, I'm interested to know what separates them in other people's minds.
Edit: I looked it up and apparently both types of pill work to prevent fertilization, although only the combination pill prevents ovulation. Even so, both pills also do work to prevent implantation in the event of fertilization.
[ July 01, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
All I have to say is this: I know a number of women who have had abortions. In no case, was it a matter of just not wanting to be bothered, or a matter of using abortion as birth control. And in every case, it was a huge decision that was not made quickly or lightly.
Perhaps there are women out there who take abortion as a light matter. I've certainly never met one, especially among women who have had abortions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think how seriously most women take it is an indicator that favors the pro-life side. There's a reason it's a big deal.
Dagonee
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
No. I know women who have had abortions, do not regret having the abortion, are pro-choice. They consider it a very serious matter, did not enter into their decision lightly.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I think that the idea that anyone who is pro-choice takes the issue of abortion lightly is ridiculous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
saxon75,
Thanks for the info. I can attempt to rationalize support for the pill and not abortion, although I don't buy it myself.
Implantation might serve as a convenient starting point for personhood. It's a bright line rule, which has attractions, and can't really be fudged. Prior to implantation, the embryo is actually in a fairly hostile environment. The pill just makes the environment more hostile. Choosing implantation as the bright line also solves the embryonic stem cell and in-vitro controversies nicely.
I have a hard time buying any other line, because until sentience none of them seem very important and none differentiate animals. And sentience as a line would allow killing of infants, as well as possible some mentally disabled persons.
The potentiality analysis avoids the animal equivalency issue and would also allow the pill, because prior to implantation there's a much smaller chance of a successful birth.
Like I said, I don't buy these arguments myself.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
lma, I never said they didn't take it seriously. I said their taking it seriously is a good sign that this is a significant event that bears analysis, and that the analysis will weigh heavily in favor of pro-life.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That, or I'm just tired of debating the issues, and it'd be a relief to discuss them.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I honestly don't know what you're talking about... but if you want to know if I support sex-ed (beyond abstinence) then I do... but I really don't know if that has anything to do with what you're talking about. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)