quote:NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.
Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.
He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.
"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those woman, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said...
So if I get pregnant, I should claim that I'm considering abortion so I can get $500!
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I didn't read the article, but did it mention if this $500 would be offered to women who were already planning to give their babies up for adoption? It'd seem odd if it was an offer only for those considering abortion.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But pfresh, then all the women who were already going to give the babies up for adoption can claim they might want abortions too, and then Texas can claim it's stopping even MORE pregnancy terminations!
-pH
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
*sigh*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why the sigh?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Because it is disgusting.
I realize your position on aborting, Dag, and I think you know mine...we have had a "few" discussions about it here, haven't we?
But this seems like a horrible idea to me, and it bothers me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Damn, I thought some women were already having more kids to get more child support. Now they have even more incentive to get pregnant.
I wonder if they've considered that this will encourage teenagers to have sex, hoping to get $500.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because it is disgusting.
That's a pretty inflammatory statement to make, Kwea. Calling it disgusting takes it quite a lot further than stating it's a bad idea and it bothers you.
quote:I wonder if they've considered that this will encourage teenagers to have sex, hoping to get $500.
Perhaps they are equally concerned with preventing abortions. I realize for some people in this community, that isn't the primary consideration, but for other people, it is.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder how willing they are to continue to support the child after it's born. If a woman is seriously considering an abortion, for whatever reason, and decides against to based on $500, I would say she's likely in a very poor situation to be raising that child.
The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
You just convinced someone who was pretty sure she couldn't deal with a child to have the baby. Then she takes her $500 and she's gone. What happens to that child now, if she woman isn't financially, emotionally, or physically able to care for it?
It isn't a one-event problem. After the abortion doesn't take place, you now have a minimum of 18 years that someone has to be responsible for.
I hope the program offers education, child care, job assistance, big brother/big sister, etc.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Maybe it would tip the balance for one pregnant teen who decides she doesn't want to be "fat" at prom.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
It's a silly idea. I don't really have a problem with them trying it, but I don't expect it to solve anything.
They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex. That way, less pregnancies and less abortions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
Who exactly put forth that idea?
Edit: The scare quotes are part of what I'm talking about.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex. That way, less pregnancies and less abortions.
That's part of the problem though. There's a strong opposition to safe sex education in Texas (to the best of my knowledge from living in the state for the last 12 years or so) and a focus on abstinence-only education. Since there's opposition, the legislators aren't going to change it. So they'll got about different measures, some sort of odd like this.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I can kind of see the idea: if you are a young woman who can't afford to miss work and don't have the insurance to pay for having a baby, then that might be what tips you from having a baby and giving it up for adoption to just having an abortion--the money. I don't know that I think this is the best way to go about dealing with that situation, but I don't think it's completely out of left field.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It isn't a one-event problem.
Neither is abortion a one-event-without-reprecussions solution... even granting the prochoice side the benefit of the doubt.
I'm far more disgusted that the pro-life side has been reduced to this idea than I am by the idea itself.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
But those of us who are moms, and especially those of us who didn't have health insurance and good-paying jobs when we first entered into the world of motherhood, know that $500 is NOT going to make that much of a difference.
Assuming we're talking about this money being an incentive to *keep* the child as opposed to bringing it to term and then adopting it out, that $500 is a month or two of baby expenses, maybe more if the new mom gets a lot of help from family and friends and babyshower gifts/hand-me-downs.
If this is an incentive to term and adopt, then we're buying babies. And I do believe that's currently illegal?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
$500 every 9 months for getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption... sounds like a bad idea for public assistance. I bet lots of women will realize that they won't be $500 worth of inconvenienced. That's almost free money.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, wouldn't the costs of doctors visits and the hospital be greater than $500? Even if the mother did give the baby up for adoption after?
-pH
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
How about we play deal or no deal for the baby? We could get a bunch of women who are considering having an abortion and allow them to play the game, with the explicit agreement being that no matter how much money they win, they wont abort the child. It would be great, and can you imagine the ratings?
Of course, that is disgusting, what I just said is disgusting, but when Kwea says that giving 500 dollars to mothers not to abort is disgusting, it is that way because of the slippery slope and wrong-headedness of the idea. If we are willing to pay women 500 dollars not to abort the child, then why not let them play deal or no deal and get as much money as they need or would ever want? And how do you have any legs to stand on when you say that one is disgusting and the other isnt?
But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars. I am not trying to start something, and I am not trying to make a point about pro life/pro choice, but what I am saying is that sometimes the solutions, no matter how innocuous they may seem, are ridiculous in nature.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
This idea proposed by the Texas Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick is silly. A $500 stipend will not deter abortion. On moral grounds, I think abortion is wrong, but it has been legal in the US for 34 years. Politically, as a conservative, it think the abortion issue is a mute point. It is the law of the land and will never be overturned.
I have been aware for many years that most women who exercise "their right to choose" could actually afford to support the child they abort. This indicates to me that most abortions are for convenience and not for the financial reasons that many pro-abortion activists continue insist on.
The following statistics by the LA based Westside Pregnancy Resource Center seem to support my position. It’s statistics indicate only 27% of the women who get abortions are actually below the poverty level. WPRC does not indicate any partisan or religious affiliation.
~A Native Texan~
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat:the abortion issue is a mute point.
The word is "moot", fyi. </nazi>
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think it's disgusting to value a life at $500, and I also don't think it would be a very effective program.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, wouldn't the costs of doctors visits and the hospital be greater than $500? Even if the mother did give the baby up for adoption after?
-pH
Women who might be so poor they would accept a $500 incentive to change their minds almost certainly qualify for state-funded medical care-- that's free prenatal and delivery.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wouldn't expect this to be particularly successful. Best to spend the money on other things, like educating people on how to prevent pregnancies, making sure that everyone has access to effective contraception methods, ensuring good support systems for pregnant women and families in general, and improving or maintaining the adoption system.
Additionally, it would be helpful if there were less of a stigma surrounding unwed pregnancies. How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy? (Actually, perhaps it would be helpful if we had a better idea of why most abortions take place. Anyone know of a study?)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy?
I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The whole thing is ridiculous, mainly for the reason stated above about just telling someone you're going to have an abortion simply to get 500 smackaroos.
If the difference between choosing to kill or not to kill an innocent child is, for you, 500 dollars, then you should be post-birth aborted.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If the difference between choosing to kill or not to kill an innocent child is, for you, 500 dollars, then you should be post-birth aborted.
This is the kind of statement that makes my irony meter go Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I'd like them to keep that $500 and use it to pay for these pregnant women considering abortion to have ultrasounds so they can see what exactly is growing inside them. The day I witnessed my wife's ultrasound of our unborn child was the day I became anti-abortion. There was no doubt that it was a child, it was alive, and it was a miracle of life growing inside her. If those women could see that, and be forced to confront that, I do believe it would change a lot of minds.
Or just use the money for educating people about safe sex and birth control options. Bribing people to not have abortions just doesn't sound like a good idea.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because it is disgusting.
Maybe some commentary on why this is "disgusting"?
quote:I wonder how willing they are to continue to support the child after it's born. If a woman is seriously considering an abortion, for whatever reason, and decides against to based on $500, I would say she's likely in a very poor situation to be raising that child.
...
You just convinced someone who was pretty sure she couldn't deal with a child to have the baby. Then she takes her $500 and she's gone. What happens to that child now, if she woman isn't financially, emotionally, or physically able to care for it?
It isn't a one-event problem. After the abortion doesn't take place, you now have a minimum of 18 years that someone has to be responsible for.
I hope the program offers education, child care, job assistance, big brother/big sister, etc.
From the article: "Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption."
quote:Damn, I thought some women were already having more kids to get more child support. Now they have even more incentive to get pregnant.
I wonder if they've considered that this will encourage teenagers to have sex, hoping to get $500.
Yeah, right - who's going to get pregnant for a one time $500 payment?
quote:The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
This might be at all applicable if anyone had said this would solve the problem of abortion. Perhaps you could point out the place where someone said that?
quote:Assuming we're talking about this money being an incentive to *keep* the child as opposed to bringing it to term and then adopting it out...
No, it's not. The article was explicit about that.
quote:Of course, that is disgusting, what I just said is disgusting, but when Kwea says that giving 500 dollars to mothers not to abort is disgusting, it is that way because of the slippery slope and wrong-headedness of the idea. If we are willing to pay women 500 dollars not to abort the child, then why not let them play deal or no deal and get as much money as they need or would ever want? And how do you have any legs to stand on when you say that one is disgusting and the other isnt?
Who said "deal or no deal" is disgusting other than you?
quote:But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars.
It's not buying a child, it's bribing someone not to kill their child.
I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
quote:I wouldn't expect this to be particularly successful. Best to spend the money on other things...
quote:It's a silly idea. I don't really have a problem with them trying it, but I don't expect it to solve anything.
They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex.
If it's not going to be particularly successful, then it won't waste much money.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place. Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy?
I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
While this is true, I think, unfortunately, reputation supercedes principle more often than we let on.
I personally know a woman whose parents said "get an abortion or we will disown you..." by which they meant they didn't want the neighbors knowing about the pregnancy.
I also know more than one woman who was perfectly fine with it being public knowledge they were sleeping around, but for whom becoming pregnant out of wedlock somehow meant they were immoral.
There's a lot of confused people out there making these choices.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote: I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded...
the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
Humean, have you *read* any of Dagonee's posts on this matter? Not only does what you said not remotely follow from anything Dagonee has said on this topic, but in the face of the *pages* he has written elsewhere on this forum regarding the subject, your point is absolutely laughable.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
And to actually address what you say, two things:
First off "gun control" isn't what people think it is. In this country it is perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons, explosives, silencers, etc. if you pay a tax on them. Gun control laws just bring more weapons under this heading. There is also a background check, but, as I recently found out the hard way a huge portion of background checks is your credit rating. The Branch Davidians were not in trouble for owning M-16s, but for not paying the tax on them. That's why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is in charge of those three seemingly incongruous items and also why it is a branch of the Treasury Department.
Owning an automatic weapon or a silencer without these permits is, essentially, the same crime as bootlegging.
So gun control isn't actually about preventing something, but about ensuring that it's a luxury and only available to the wealthy. Kind of like carbon credits WRT wasteful energy consumption-- it's ok if you pay more to make up for it.
SO* point 2-- Abortion is totaly different, not only from what real gun control is (no one suggests that abortion be allowed if you pay the government extra for it), but from what you say it is as well. Being pro-life has nothing to do with not trusting the people with something. It has everything to do with not ending what is, empirically speaking, a human life. The best response pro-choice people have to that is human life is more than the mere empirical definiton and that this thing which is human-but-not isn't so important that a woman shouldn't be allowed to kill it at her convenience. That perfectly justifies it to some, but absolutely not to Dagonee, me, and a few others.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
OK, Jim, my metnal speel chekcar was on mute.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place. Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
You really should not try to interpret the way I view the world from your hateful, ignorant perspective. Just because YOU would be thinking such stupid things if you supported the idea doesn't mean that I am.
Here are the basic facts:
1) I believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a helpless human being.
2) I believe that government should use its power to protect the helpless.
3) Government has been prevented from doing so by the most tortured constitutional reasoning since Dred Scott.
4) Since government can't do what it should to secure the right to life - what we maintain in one of our founding documents that it should do - because of that decision, then stupid ideas like bribing someone not to kill another human being are all the government is left with.
quote:You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded
Why you think the proposed legislation is incompatible with arguing or persuading is beyond me - I can't imagine the inane premises or tortured logic that allowed you to go from the one to the other, and you haven't bothered to explain them at all.
Ideally, I think everyone should be persuaded not to commit immoral acts. Some acts are so heinous that we don't rely on mere persuasion. Yet that doesn't mean we don't try persuasion while still having laws on the books.
Frankly, I'm betting it's a waste of time to write this. Neither one of your posts on this subject has exhibited the least intent to attempt to discuss this. It's simple name-calling and motive-questioning for you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ironically, even if Texas were to value the cost of pregnancy at $500, they'd still be putting less of a price tag on a human birth than most blue states.
This is because Texas is a wonderful example of a state that likes to be as miserly as possible with social support for women in need of social medical support for pregnancy and childrearing. Not the worst, of course, but it's still down there.
To the guy who recommended this brain-dead plan to have the state start trying to buy off babies, I could only recommend this similarly ludicrous jab: If you want to really cut down on abortions, the only real solution is to try as hard as possible to adopt liberal policies and emulate a blue state. You will save thousands more children than a measly $500 bribe ever could.
You must hurry, Dan Patrick. Think of the children.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"If you want to really cut down on abortions, the only real solution is to try as hard as possible to adopt liberal policies and emulate a blue state."
Why? What do they do that cuts down on the numbers?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you are following the logic that the state needs to pay off mothers to try to limit abortions, guess which states offer the most support to would-be parents?
That's the comic angle: Dan Patrick's own plan is simply a ham-fisted attempt to emulate the benefit of what socially liberal states provide better to poor would-be mothers. If Texas were to try to recreate the support networks that very blue states have for poor pregnant women and parents, then they'd be convincing a sight lot more women not to abort, than they would get if they were to wave five Benjies under their nose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd love to see Samp back that up with numbers.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Women who might be so poor they would accept a $500 incentive to change their minds almost certainly qualify for state-funded medical care-- that's free prenatal and delivery.
Not automatically, at least not when I needed it. I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but my employer didn't offer health benefits. L&D was about $2500. Of course, once she was born, I then dropped below the upper limit because of the new dependant, but they wouldn't help me out with services incurred prior to qualification.
That little bundle of stress and money is now 13 years old.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'd love to see Samp back that up
blue states spend more on welfare and social programs per capita
quote: with numbers.
34
663
95
2
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do you have evidence that this lowers the abortion rate, as you claimed in "You will save thousands more children"?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
This is supposed to be what both sides of the issue want. If you're "pro-choice," and you don't think the decision is best for the mother, isn't the reason for your position a belief that it's her choice rather than yours or anyone else's? Since there's no human life at stake, why shouldn't the mother make her decision as she sees fit, whether it's for $500, personal beliefs, or just on a whim? It's *her* whim, after all.
And someone else here has pointed out that government already gives money to poor mothers sometimes, so if someone is "pro-choice" and believes in aid to poor mothers, that person should be even happier that the poor mother has more money and it's more practical for her to do what she really wants to rather than what she has to.
I think it is sad that this is even controversial.
[ March 24, 2007, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
quote: I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
I don't agree with that at all. Among my family and most people I know there is no, or very little stigma attached to premarital sex, and not that much for abortion (besides no one would have to know you had the abortion, that's the whole point, to get rid of it before it becomes obvious), but there is HUGE stigma attached to unwed motherhood, or even premature, hurried marriages at a young age as a result of pregnancy. If I had gotten pregnant my family would never have forgiven me. I think it may be partially a class thing. The same way that it's absolutely unthinkable not to go to college in some families. My mom also would have disowned me if I had dropped out of college or gotten married before, say, 24 or 25.
Getting pregnant too young would have been like announcing to the world that you were a looser who was too stupid to use birthcontrol properly, or had no ambition, and who wasn't really middle class at all. Not that I agree with that sentiment, but that is the way you would be perceived. You just wouldn't fit in anymore.
I remember one girl who got pregnant at sixteen in my highschool and disappeared for nearly a year to have the baby and give it up for adoption. She was a pariah. She was considered trashy. And it wasn't because everyone else wasn't having sex too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Do you have evidence that this lowers the abortion rate, as you claimed in "You will save thousands more children"?
I will go ahead and exhaustively impart the position I am taking.
Dan Patrick's plan is essentially to try to buy off abortions with money. He's assuming that there will be a modicum of women who are in such dire financial straits that $500 will convince them to bring the baby to term anyway and then give it up for adoption for just the promise of that much money to help them get through the process.
And he's willing to support the program by saying 'even if it only saves X number of women, it's worth it.' That's his position. The handouts are justified for even the most macrocosmic 'success' stories.
If one is willing to support the idea that the state should buy off abortions (this is important, this is 'following his logic') they have to recognize that blue states already provide way more to women in the very situation that Patrick is trying to influence with payouts. They also have much better networks of support and resources available to poor mothers. For every decision to abort which could possibly be halted with adoption payouts, welfare systems are halting way, way more by making it easier for women to bring babies to term in situations where they otherwise would be financially unable to.
One could say 'but the blue states have more abortions!' but this isn't a counterclaim. Blue states have more abortions for many reasons that do not involve welfare supporting mothering at all, including a higher percentage of people who are ideologically okay with having abortions, easier access to abortions, welfare itself also covering abortion, less influence by fundamentalist christianity, etc. If you were to take two identical Texases (texii?) that were alike in religious makeup, demographics, minority population, GDP per capita, unemployment rate, etc, and one had a 'decent welfare system' and the other one had Dan Patrick's $500 handout, one of these states would have a bunch less abortions.
Systems which reduce the impact of poverty on potential mothers will prevent abortions. Systems which give better financial assistance to women who are considering abortion due to financial issues will make it so that more of those women will bring those babies to term. The reasons why are startlingly apparent. Anything that Patrick's crude handout would do to prevent abortions, a real welfare system would do better. My guess is that Patrick wanted to go with the handout because 'welfare' has a stigma in states like Texas and he's trying to circumvent that stigma by making this related specifically only to abortion!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'd like them to keep that $500 and use it to pay for these pregnant women considering abortion to have ultrasounds so they can see what exactly is growing inside them. The day I witnessed my wife's ultrasound of our unborn child was the day I became anti-abortion. There was no doubt that it was a child, it was alive, and it was a miracle of life growing inside her. If those women could see that, and be forced to confront that, I do believe it would change a lot of minds.
I may be wrong on this, don't hold me to it, but I think in Alabama an ultrasound is required for dating purposes...in other words the clinic must do one to be sure of the date because late term abortions are illegal here. But, there is no requirement that they show the ultrasound images to the pregnant mother. I would love to see that changed, because I agree with you...I think it would change a lot of minds.
And I think it would be something that everyone would agree with...I mean, those who are pro-choice would want the woman to make a fully informed choice, and that includes giving her all the information available on her developing baby.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If one is willing to support the idea that the state should buy off abortions (this is important, this is 'following his logic') they have to recognize that blue states already provide way more to women in the very situation that Patrick is trying to influence with payouts.
Your whole argument depends on the premise that the value to the expectant mother of $500 in cash has the same value to the mother as the difference in medical care between Texas and your blue state, a premise that is unlikely to be true.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd love to see Samp back that up with numbers.
Does he really need to provide numbers? If women are having abortions because of cost, which is the premise of giving them $500, then it is logical that the more they save, the more money they get when they're pregnant, then the less likely they will be to abort because of cost.
Five hundred dollars won't pay to have a baby, I don't believe. Medical bills cost more than that.
So, if the state offered some kind of medical insurance to pregnant women so they didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, a plan that is usually associated with 'blue state' liberalism, and this saves women more money, then they will be less likely to abort.
If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does he really need to provide numbers?
At minimum, he needs to provide evidence that blue states provide more than $500 in care over that provided by Texas - something that would pretty much require numbers.
quote:If women are having abortions because of cost, which is the premise of giving them $500,
No, it is not the premise of giving them $500. The premise of giving them $500 is that some people will choose not to have an abortion if given $500 not to do so. This might be related to cost, but it might not be.
quote: then it is logical that the more they save, the more money they get when they're pregnant, then the less likely they will be to abort because of cost.
So, if the state offered some kind of medical insurance to pregnant women so they didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, a plan that is usually associated with 'blue state' liberalism, and this saves women more money, then they will be less likely to abort.
If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true.
Beyond the difference in how someone values $500 in cash and free medical care, the mere offer of $500 might make people investigate their options more thoroughly. In doing so, they might discover that, in Texas, adoption agencies can provide medical expenses, legal fees, counseling expenses, and living expenses.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why do I bother. Jesus, it's like talking to a brick wall.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Classy.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:You really should not try to interpret the way I view the world from your hateful, ignorant perspective. Just because YOU would be thinking such stupid things if you supported the idea doesn't mean that I am.
My hateful and ignorant perspective? My perspective was that you should trust in people, that was my point, that maybe if you argue the view logically and thoughtfully that people will be moral and righteous, and that though this issue seems like one that is divisive down party lines, it isnt. When you say that "it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care.", I inferred that you believed that it shouldnt be legal in the first place and that people should believe what you believe, but inherently, that also implies that you know you are right and that the people are incorrect, willingly immoral, and that the state has to resort to bribery because the baby cannot protect itself from the person that tries to abort it. And if they need protection from that person, then inherently that person is a horrible and bad person, but more than that, you fail to allow for the notion that they arent willingly being immoral or horrible and that maybe, if the absolute moral situation is pro-life, that they could be intelligent people who when shown the truth will do the right thing. Trust in the people dagonee, trust that they will do right, and they just might. We are great as both a race and a being, trust that we CAN do what is right--that is my point.
I have no doubt that this issue raises the emotional to the logical at times, but when my argument is simply that you should trust the people more, I am not being hateful or ignorant. I dont believe you are being hateful or ignorant either, I believe you are being passionate, and there is difference. To conflate the two is to simply be incorrect, IMO. I understand that we disagree and thats cool, but emotional arguments that claim my side is hateful and ignorant tend not to have either the impact or logical reasoning that most arguments that dont begin with the word "hate" invoke. If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, let's see Humean316...
quote:But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars. I am not trying to start something, and I am not trying to make a point about pro life/pro choice, but what I am saying is that sometimes the solutions, no matter how innocuous they may seem, are ridiculous in nature.
That's not what's being done at all. The party paying the $500.00 doesn't own the person, they've paid the pregnant woman the money not to kill the person (or to some people's terminology, to not terminate the pregnancy).
That's not remotely the same thing. Your assertion that it is is laughably ignorant, and certainly seems like you're trying to start something, to have missed such an obvious point.
quote:For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place.
First of all, it's plain you know nothing of how Dagonee feels about women who get abortions, whether he likes them or not. Clearly he disapproves very strongly of abortion, but that does not mean he hates or despises them as you're implying.
You also reveal your ignorance in this fashion: Dagonee feels that abortion is the killing of the unborn. Now, I don't know about you, but that's a pretty urgent situation, wouldn't you say? To someone who believes that, I mean, not necessarily to someone like you who "isn't trying to start something".
If paying people $500.00 not to kill the unborn would work (and he has not stated it will), why not do it? Answer me that. Questions of dignity and bribery are irrelevant when compared to the gravity of the situation, if you believe abortion is the killing of the unborn. If you believe that, the abortion itself is like the house being on fire, and questions of distasteful persuasion methods are like some chipped paint in the basement.
quote:That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people?
That's the crux of your argument. It's not the crux of his.
quote:...I inferred that you believed that it shouldnt be legal in the first place and that people should believe what you believe, but inherently, that also implies that you know you are right and that the people are incorrect, willingly immoral, and that the state has to resort to bribery because the baby cannot protect itself from the person that tries to abort it
Correct up until you get to the willingly immoral part. You don't know that Dagonee believes that. Stop stuffing your own arguments down his throat and acting like he's talking.
quote:Of course, within that argument is a denouncement of the person who has the abortion.
Only if Dagonee explicitly stated that he believed everyone who had an abortion believed and knew that they were killing an unborn child would the denouncement you describe automatically follow.
quote:If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
Dagonee believes that abortion is the killing of the unborn. Given that belief, obviously it is sad that the state has to resort to bribery to stop the practice. Clearly, in most cases, since Dagonee believes that, he does not think women who abort are generally making the right decision.
You've certainly not shown yourself as someone who is willing to read and respond respectfully and carefully, so why on Earth should Dagonee-or anyone else for that matter-be remotely concerned with earning your respect, or your belief?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:You've certainly not shown yourself as someone who is willing to read and respond respectfully and carefully, so why on Earth should Dagonee-or anyone else for that matter-be remotely concerned with earning your respect, or your belief?
You know, I am fairly new to the board, I dont know that many people on here, I know Storm Saxon and thats only because he wrote a reply in another thread, I dont hang around here much, and the only reason I did earlier was because of a friend who told me I had to come here. I dont know Dagonee at all, but if you think I responded to his post without reading everything he wrote in this thread, then you are mistaken. Did I go back and look at previous posts? I am not going to lie, I didnt, and I wouldnt even know how, so if you fault me for that, then fair enough. I argued a contrary position, and I am baffled how it wasnt respectful or careful. But you know, fair enough.
I raise my glass to you guys, and say cheers mates...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Trust in the people dagonee, trust that they will do right, and they just might. We are great as both a race and a being, trust that we CAN do what is right--that is my point.
And I showed how your point was wrong-- that it is completely unrelated to the pro-life perspective-- several posts back.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why do I bother. Jesus, it's like talking to a brick wall.
And it's only the pro-choicers who feel that way when talking to pro-lifers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:This is because Texas is a wonderful example of a state that likes to be as miserly as possible with social support for women in need of social medical support for pregnancy and childrearing. Not the worst, of course, but it's still down there.
Texas paid for my prenatal care and childbirth and associated costs, and it was a LOT easier to go through that process there than it was in California. Just sayin'.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Texas did something for KQ better than California??? Posted by Perplexity'sDaughter (Member # 9668) on :
I'd say if the whole program saved one single human life, it would be worth it.
Of course, I don't believe you can put a price on something as precious as an unborn child, but when it comes down to it, I'm only concerned with keeping the babies alive. In this situation, the purpose outweighs the means.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why do I bother. Jesus, it's like talking to a brick wall.
OK, what the hell are you talking about? You said, "If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true."
I demonstrated how it that idea could not be true, and the $500 idea could be. If you disagree with that, address my reasoning. Don't pretend - and it must be pretense, because I know you can read - that I didn't address your points.
You also asked if he needed to provide numbers. I pointed out that at least one set of numbers is needed if the blue state/red state issue was to have any relevance to the $500 plan.
Perhaps you could point out what was non-responsive (that is what you mean by "brick wall," right?).
In fact, the brick wall comparison is a lot more applicable to you, since I actually responded to your points with analysis and reasoning. All you did was complain about how I answered.
And this from the man who makes a regular practice of commenting about how much other people here complain about posting style.
Whatever the hell your problem is with me Storm, either get over it or stop addressing me entirely. I responded respectfully and in detail to your substantive points. You swore and insulted me in return. Cut out the crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
So you'll respect me more if I lie? Why on earth would you do that.
I do think it's sad that Texas is thinking about resorting to this. I think it's sad that the final rampart of civil liberties - an institution that actually rests much of its jurisprudence on the idea of protecting those without access to the political process - has made it impossible for Texas to pass a less laughable law to protect the unborn. I'm sad that abortion is contemplated at all outside saving the life of the mother and that state intervention is necessary.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
Incidentally, any time abortion is brought up I am reminded of "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion." Before anyone knee-jerks, it's not an attempt to discredit the pro-life (as opposed to what, anti-life?) stance, it is an attempt to point out that this is one of those issues where the sides are not always black-and-white.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
We, through the government, use monetary bribes to influence people's behaviors all the time. You can get tax credits for installing alternative-energy systems at home, or for driving an electric or hybrid car. We get to deduct mortgage interest in order to encourage/facilitate people to buy the homes they live in.
quote:pro-life (as opposed to what, anti-life?)
Yes, in exactly the same way that pro-choice is opposed to anti-choice, which is how your article labels that side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
What ethical principle does it violate? We use monetary bribes to influence a lot of social issues - getting an education, not doing drugs, signing up for the selective service, buying a house, conserving energy. Is it only the ones where someone wants to stop an actual killing that disgust enters the picture?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
To be fair, it's not my article, and if you had read it all you would see a number of different names used. I used different names in my post for that reason, to illustrate how it all depends on your premise. That you still choose to make it a black-and-white issue is your choice.
I maintain it isn't that simple, and it tends to only be that simple to people who haven't been faced with the terrible situation where they have had to choose, whether through support or with their own body. That, however, is only based on my experiences and articles like the one I linked. You don't have to take that as a scientific statement.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What ethical principle does it violate? We use monetary bribes to influence a lot of social issues - getting an education, not doing drugs, signing up for the selective service, buying a house, conserving energy. Is it only the ones where someone wants to stop an actual killing that disgust enters the picture?
Like my response to mph, it seems to all be about perspective. I'm not maintaining that it's black-and-white here. You are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not maintaining that it's black-and-white here. You are.
I am? Where?
If you think I think abortion as an issue is "simple" or "black and white" then you are sadly mistaken. It's very complex.
You'd do a lot better to stop telling me what I think or what I'm maintaining and just concentrate on a simple question: You've implied that this must seem at least unethical. If it must seem that way, it should be a simple matter for you name the ethical principle at issue.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I can't speak for Dagonee, but I too think that abortion is wrong, that the fetus is alive, and that it is murder. I do think that women who make these decisions are wrong, and maybe even immoral. But that doesn't mean I hate them, or think they are horrible people. I just think their decision is wrong. And I think they're wrong because they are wrongly informed.
And frankly, I don't trust people to do the right thing. Because the right thing has been obscured by people who don't understand what pregnancy and life truly is. And I do think it's sad that a state would resort to bribing people to do the right thing and not abort a life. That's not a hateful statement, but I would be wrong to sit here and pretend that I don't think abortion is wrong and immoral. I think pro-life people have trusted others to do the right thing, and that trust has been proven wrong. Otherwise abortion would not be legal in the US.
That doesn't mean I hate them. And because I think they're wrong doesn't make them a 'bad' person. But I think that choice is wrong, and it's immoral. I have pity and sympathy and compassion for any woman who does make that choice. Mostly from what I've heard many women feel horribly about the decision, many suffer emotion problems and issues, many turn to staunch anti-abortion advocates.
Many will disagree, and you have a right to disagree just as much as I have a right to my opinion. But when it comes to this issue I will not budge, or be silenced, or ignore the issue and walk the other way. Frankly, I don't think it's something that can be decided in a democratic manner with a majority rule. If it's wrong, it's wrong. No other murder is allowed to be mitigated by popular opinion in this country. No other murder is allowed to be mitigated by someone else's right to committ murder.
And I don't think it's fair to assign motives and opinions to someone who you do not know, nor understand their position, just because you don't agree with them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:the right thing has been obscured by people who don't understand what pregnancy and life truly is.
Or do not believe the same things as you about what they are/mean?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That you still choose to make it a black-and-white issue is your choice.
What the heck? The only thing I've said in thread is that the using monetary bribes/incentives to change behavior is extremely common, and that the terms "anti-choice" and "anti-life" are analogous.
How in the world did you pull from that the idea that it's a black-and-white issue for me? You don't appear to know the first thing about my actual views on this issue.
Even more, I don't see how my personal views on the issue of abortion are relevant to whether or not it's immoral to use monetary incentives/bribes for social issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: can't speak for Dagonee, but I too think that abortion is wrong, that the fetus is alive, and that it is murder.
Almost, but not quite: abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.
Some (maybe most) intentional killings are deserving of criminal sanction. The application of the same principles to abortion as are applied other forms of intentional killing of human being is what I seek.
Turning to Jutsa's conclusion concerning my views on the subject: Whether a killing is deserving of criminal sanction is hardly a black and white issue, despite the ability to easily classify many killings as deserving of criminal sanction and many as not deserving of criminal sanction.
"Shades of gray" does not mean "every case is a hard case." It means "a significant number of hard cases exists."
And the fact that a case is hard does not prevent one from arriving at a conclusion concerning its outcome. For example, based on the accounts I've read, I think Bernard Goetz's shooting on the subway is an act that should produce criminal liability but that both his prior experiences and the situation preceding it are highly mitigating (i.e., culpability-reducing, not culpability-eliminating) factors. I don't think it's a black and white issue. Rather, I've reached a firm (yet caveated) conclusion based on extensive thought and analysis of quite a few complex issues.
[ March 24, 2007, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: it tends to only be that simple to people who haven't been faced with the terrible situation where they have had to choose, whether through support or with their own body. That, however, is only based on my experiences and articles like the one I linked. You don't have to take that as a scientific statement.
So you are at least willing to acknowledge that people like me (who have had relatives aborted but are still firmly pro-life... "black and white" as you call it...) exist. How gracious.
What you don't seem to get is that killing someone who isn't morally culpable for their own death (by, say, attacking you with deadly force) is a black and white thing. Now, as I said earlier, there is some dispute over whether mere empirical human life constitutes "real" (whatever that means)human life... but there is absolutely nothing "grey" about killing an innocent child if that is indeed what's happening.
There is no remotely common circumstance (I'm willing to allow that we may someday, wandering lost in the desert, encounter a child in the last, painful throes of cancer and execute a mercy killing) where we find a living child and say "well, let's just kill them, they're better off that way" -- not abusive parents, not horrible diseases, certainly not economic misfortune.
The "shades of grey" thing just doesn't fly when you are talking about killing a baby... which pro-lifers are.
Edit: As Dagonee points out, that's far from saying that there aren't complexities in the issue... I just am pretty sure they pale in comparison to ending a human life.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:the right thing has been obscured by people who don't understand what pregnancy and life truly is.
Or do not believe the same things as you about what they are/mean?
If it needs to be justified that way, and someone feels that is a correct opinion. But frankly I don't see it as an issue of what I believe vs what someone else believes. It's a hard fact. IMO, some people just don't understand that fact. And I think they're wrong.
As I said, you're free to disagree. But it's not going to change what the truth of this matter is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
To some pro-lifers, babies are being killed by abortion. This is not a difficult concept to understand at all, even if you don't agree with it. Once you're at Square One (Killing Babies), if bribing (a concept routinely practiced by the government both in respect to its citizens and to itself) works, you do it.
Man, I'm using a lot of italicization here, but I'm really having an extremely difficult time understanding why some people don't get this. To people who think this process is unethical (leaving questions of effectiveness aside):
If a person was standing in front of you with a knife to an infant's throat and said*, "Pay me $500.00 or I will kill this baby." In this artificial scenario, those are your only two choices: pay the money or the kid dies. What would you do? Obviously you fork over the $500.00 bloody dollars just as fast as your hands can get to your pocket and open your wallet.
*No, I am not characterizing pro-choicers as baby-murderers. I am simply saying that in this one situation, a baby is being threatened and the obvious thing to do is pay up. In another situation, from a certain perspective-not necessarily one you share, just another perspective-precisely the same possibility is offered.
You don't have to be a pro-lifer to understand why a pro-lifer would support this sort of policy aside from other considerations. It's pretty darned easy.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Actually, I can see exactly why I should have left what I said with the link. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of every one of your replies to me, but I am not convinced it would result in anything but us talking past each other. I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer. kthnxbai
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer.
Admit it. You didn't even read my post.
quote:*No, I am not characterizing pro-choicers as baby-murderers. I am simply saying that in this one situation, a baby is being threatened and the obvious thing to do is pay up. In another situation, from a certain perspective-not necessarily one you share, just another perspective-precisely the same possibility is offered.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Actually, I can see exactly why I should have left what I said with the link. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of every one of your replies to me, but I am not convinced it would result in anything but us talking past each other. I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer. kthnxbai
</snipped>
Edit: That's not what happened.
[ March 24, 2007, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At minimum, he needs to provide evidence that blue states provide more than $500 in care over that provided by Texas - something that would pretty much require numbers.
I'll give it to ya -- that really is a dead minimum.
I don't have to stretch very hard: I just work to present the fact that Texas is in the lowest quintile when it comes to medicaid benefits per recipient, which leaves its abnormally high quantity of people living under the federal poverty line sort of high and dry when it comes to dire potential financial issues, such as an unintended/unwanted child.
I give you A Chart:
MEDICAID SPENDING PER ENROLEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
STATE IN QUESTION - TEXAS - $2,852.1
REPRESENTATIVE 'NOT VERY BLUE AT ALL, BUT STILL NOT TEXAS' STATE - GEORGIA - $7,838.6
REPRESENTATIVE 'OCCASIONALLY CONSIDERED BLUE' STATE - VIRGINIA - $9,592.2
REPRESENTATIVE 'MIDWAY' STATE - PENNSYLVANIA - $9,911.6
REPRESENTATIVE 'BLUE' STATE - NEW YORK - $12,407.7
REPRESENTATIVE 'HOLY CRAP THAT'S BLUE' STATE - MINNESOTA - $16,572.0
Notice the big leap between Texas and Georgia. How about Utah? $5,017.8.
Five hundred dollars wouldn't even get Texas up to Kansas levels of coverage for poor people needing medical assistance. It is not exactly a sterling example of governmental assistance for the poor. It is actually most often referenced by Texas citizens as a "sucky" or "terrible" system. It is a sore that liberal magazines delight in poking at. In fact: there's plenty of other reasons to point out that this senator's handout is a great way to help Texas legislators ignore the real issues. Children's medicaid and SCHIP in Texas has been on the decline in recent years, having been subject to a number of budget cuts that reduced many programs below redline efficiency estimates. Partially as a result, the state gets poor reviews for the availability of care and support to poor mothers. Issues like this contribute to the fact that despite having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions, Texas still has an unusually high number of abortions per live births in its borders.
Any one of these women -- we'll call them the 'target demographic' for this state rep -- who is considering termination in such a way that a simple $500 will get her to cancel? By God, they're probably in that situation simply because the state's welfare system is underfunded and overloaded. This state representative is simply waving money at the aftereffects of anti-welfare policy, trying to act compassionate while (if at all possible) trying to avoid actual commitment to some worthwhile policy that might be called that uggo word, 'welfare.' No, this is 'saving children.'
Another thing that could help fix Texas' abortion rates is universal healthcare, which would relieve an absurd burden from the internal Texas tax system. Compared to the national average of 15%, Texas faces the issue that over 22% of their population has no health insurance. Uninsured folk create a burden, since they often receive little to no preventative care and end up as bigger expenses when they do require and qualify for assistance. This all leaves less support for potential mothers, who take this all into consideration when wondering if they have to make the choice to axe a pregnancy because they're literally too poor to handle it.
He wants to wave cash at the abortion issue and appear compassionate in doing so. In practice, it's an admirable distraction from things they could actually do to reduce a significant quantity of abortions, like medical coverage for mothers and families! Or working hard to dump the train wreck of Abstinence Only sex education systems.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wow, Samp. Well said.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Texas did something for KQ better than California???
Yeah-- that, beef, and ice cream. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Although I have to say that the quality of care, my doctor, wait times, and the hospital I delivered at were all better in CA.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My impression is that CA has higher "bars" to jump, but the quality of care once you jump 'em is superior to that of neighboring states. (Consistent with kq's experience.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
It is, isn't it? Wholeheartedly depressing, but an interesting line of thought to explore.
Edit to pre-emptively add: I'm not sure that pro-life people are saying paying a woman money to not abort a child is morally correct, only that it's significantly less immoral than letting the child be aborted.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Edit to pre-emptively add: I'm not sure that pro-life people are saying paying a woman money to not abort a child is morally correct, only that it's significantly less immoral than letting the child be aborted.
I'll accept that.
Still the question remains, how much is it worth to pay a mother not to have an abortion? If a woman said, "I'm planning to have an abortion, because I can't afford to raise this child right. I need $30,000 to do that." is it reasonable to pay the woman to keep the child?
Are there pro-lifers who are willing and able to put their money where their mouth is? How important is that unborn child REALLY? Are you willing to cash in your children's college fund to prevent an abortion? Sell your house to save an unborn child?
Quite an interesting moral can of worms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow, Samp. Well said.
Too bad it's based on extremely faulty data. It all sounds nice and straightforward until one actually examines his claims. For example, this is untrue, assuming "unusually high" does not mean "the median":
quote:Issues like this contribute to the fact that despite having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions, Texas still has an unusually high number of abortions per live births in its borders.
Texas is 21st in spending per adult enrollee ($2,419), 31st in spending per child enrollee ($1,478). Note both these exceed the average spending per enrollee for the entire U.S.
Minnesota is only one place higher in spending per adult enrollee ($2,440). They are significantly better in spending per child enrollee ($2,254). But even that difference is not quite (as in ~$12,000 less bad) the difference Samp stated above. I found the source of Samp's numbers, and they were quite misleading. The numbers were for the "Medically Needy," which is a term of art in Medicaid.
Virginia $1,393 per child enrollee, $2,354 per adult. Georgia $1,302 per child enrollee, $2,606 per adult. Pennsylvania $1,780 per child enrollee, $2,491 per adult. New York $1,885 per child enrollee, $3,418 per adult.
Only New York's adult number is higher than Texas's by more than $500 - almost $1000. Only Minnesota's child number is higher than Texas's by more than $500 - by less than $300.
And, of course, no one has addressed the incentive/perception issue nor the fact that a mother giving a child up for adoption can usually find an agency to pay for the medical costs and sometimes even living expenses. (I don't count accusations of being a brick wall as "addressing.") If the $500 simply causes someone to look into their options a little more closely then it will be helpful.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Compared to the national average of 15%, Texas faces the issue that over 22% of their population has no health insurance.
Of course, if that includes illegal immigrants, there's no guarantee that national healthcare would fix that. Texas's Medicaid Page doesn't mention if they cover illegals, but it does say pregnant women automatically qualify.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
Is it morally correct for someone to kidnap an orphan and hold it for ransom... how far would people be willing to go?
If it's morally correct to pay a $500 ransom, is it wrong for the kidnapper to ask for $5000?
to a pro-lifer, equivalent questions
edit to add: apart from culpability.
[ March 25, 2007, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Of course, if that includes illegal immigrants, there's no guarantee that national healthcare would fix that.
I *think* the situation with illegals is, typically, this:
they present a false SSN and receive medicaid-based treatment. Doctors are not allowed, by law, to turn them away.
The Doctors then file for medicaid reimbursement, which then refuses the claims.
Doctor goes unpaid and raises prices on everyone else to compensate.
I could, however, be entirely wrong about that--- it's just the impression I have from the debates on Medicaid and Illegal Immigration.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Are there pro-lifers who are willing and able to put their money where their mouth is?
Do you have *any* idea how %%^*& insulting this question is?
A huge number of Pro-Life people give their time and effort both trying to convince people not to have abortions, and provide support for them when they do keep the child. When I had my second child I was recently fired, attending college and working a s a waiter with no health insurance. I received an immense amount of support from a crisis pregnancy center and from my church. As in "I would have been on the street delivering my second child in the rain without it" support.
And for their trouble,these organizations (which now outnumber abortion providers in some states) have to deal with Time magazine asking "are they playing fair?" on their front cover.
And yet people, repeatedly on this forum, say "I'll allow your opinion and maybe even listen to it when you pro-lifers put your money where your mouth is."
To which I and others have repeatedly said "we have" and I'm about to start shifting over to a big "F U, too".
And yet here on this thread, it's flatly asserted the pro-lifers that don't really care about the question... we just want an excuse to hate women who get pregnant out of wedlock.
Your (plural, pro-choicer) combined arrogance is sickening.
Edit: to explain what I mean, I'll go back to the kidnapping analogy. Imagine going up to someone and saying "what are you willing to do to stop kidnapping? what have you done? are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? until you prove that you do, I won't listen to any of your arguments as to why children deserve the protection of law."
[ March 25, 2007, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
To back up Jim-Me, I would have to say that yes, I've put my money where my mouth is. I've donated time and considerable money to a crisis pregnancy center that specifically helps women with financial support for unexpected pregnancies. The group routinely holds baby showers and I've bought everything from diapers to bumper pads for cribs for mothers who could not afford to buy the things on their own.
People seem to get an impression that pro-life activists are all clinic picketers. There are many, many people who work for the pro-life cause in positive, affirming ways. By offering free pregnancy testing and counseling. By offering financial help for pregnant mothers. By offering post-abortion counseling for hurting, grieving women and men. By offering continued help and support for women who decide to keep their babies. I often hear the accusation that pro-lifers don't care what happens to the woman after the baby is born. That's extremely insulting, and not true. There are many ministries that commit to providing continued support for women after the baby is born. And no, you do not have to sign a belief statement or even say you are a Christian to use the service I work closely with. They will help you regardless of your personal beliefs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For example, this is untrue, assuming "unusually high" does not mean "the median"
Good thing I'm not assuming that at all. It is unusually high for a state that I mentioned as -- quote unquote --
quote:having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions
If you put all the parts of my position together you can see I'm really not making any such mistakes.
For instance, is anyone denying the idea that a $500 payoff has not at all helpful? I think the actual counterpoint is that it is a stupid, reactive policy that will have an infinitesimal actual benefit.
quote:These are the category of people who have mandatory eligibility for medicaid coverage. These are the people who are "categorically needy" and may be covered by states. Neither set of people are included in the "Medically Needy" chart Samp grabbed his data from.
The threshold for the mandatory eligibility in Texas for pregnant women is to be living at or below 185% of the poverty level!
They are not excluded! They are not excluded from an overall per-capita analysis! Why would they be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Good thing I'm not assuming that at all. It is unusually high for a state that I mentioned as -- quote unquote --
quote:having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions
If that's what you meant, fine. But it's not what you said - you said "despite having" a conservative populace it has an unusually high ratio. That's a different statement entirely.
quote:The threshold for the mandatory eligibility in Texas for pregnant women is to be living at or below 185% of the poverty level!
They are not excluded! They are not excluded from an overall per-capita analysis! Why would they be?
Because you didn't give figures from a per-capita analysis of medicaid enrollees. You gave a per-capita analysis of SOME - a SUBSET - of medicaid enrollees.
The figures I showed were for all medicaid enrollees. Could you at least give some indication that you looked at the actual links. Yours were for "medically needy" enrollees, which does not include "categorically needy" enrollees:
quote:The option to have a "medically needy" program allows states to extend Medicaid eligibility to additional qualified persons who may have too much income to qualify under the mandatory or optional categorically needy groups.
Those two groups - mandatory and optional categorically needy groups - are NOT included in "medically needy." They are excluded from the figures you gave, no matter how many exclamation points you use. Why would they be? Because that's the definition of "medically needy."
I note you still haven't addressed the prenatal medical care available to women putting a child up for adoption through an agency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Then there's our confusion: the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act put the group we're talking about (desperately poor pregnant women) inside the classification of "Medically Needy" when it was implemented a year later. I ask why the pregnant women we're talking about would be excluded from a spending category that represents all and more of the demographic we're talking about.
Mandatory eligibility in Texas specifically for pregnancy starts at 185% under the federal poverty line. "Medically needy" doesn't exclude this category because it actually extended enrollment all the way back up to 100%. So the 'mandatory enrollment' preggers women is a subgroup entirely contained within the Spending Per Enrolee for the medically needy, as well as women who are relatively better off, as in, not living on about half the federal poverty line level, but still pretty poor.
Which is of cold comfort, since Texas is bottoming out in spending in that category?
quote:I note you still haven't addressed the prenatal medical care available to women putting a child up for adoption through an agency.
I could see it as being an immediate counterpoint if it was not more readily available in other states representing a 'better' welfare system?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Dr. Bitch is apparently angry about it and I suppose it's not a surprise.
quote:Honey, $500 isn't even going to pay for the extra groceries you'll eat during a pregnancy. ...
Senator Patrick, would you agree to take care of a neighbor's dog for nine months for a measly $500? Where do you get the balls to offer women $500 to rent out their uteruses and sell their children?
Link warning quasi adult language
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I ask why the pregnant women we're talking about would be excluded from a spending category that represents all and more of the demographic we're talking about.
Your stats were for a subset of medicaid enrollees. Making your heading ("MEDICAID SPENDING PER ENROLEE") wrong.
Further, pregnant women who qualify for one of the categories aren't included in your stats.
quote:Mandatory eligibility in Texas specifically for pregnancy starts at 185% under the federal poverty line. "Medically needy" doesn't exclude this category because it actually extended enrollment all the way back up to 100%
It does too exclude many of them - it excludes everyone at 100% or below, as well as everyone who fits one of the other categories.
quote:So the 'mandatory enrollment' preggers women is a subgroup entirely contained within the Spending Per Enrolee for the medically needy, as well as women who are relatively better off, as in, not living on about half the federal poverty line level, but still pretty poor.
Again, you miss lots of pregnant women using your stats.
quote:Patrick (R, as if you needed to ask--after all, they're the party of the free market and good strong capitalist values) is proposing a bill that would pay women $500 for their babies.
SB 1567 proposes to create an "Adoption Incentive Program" which would give
a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion.
Once you get over the "did they just say pay women for putting their children up for adoption?" shocker
Hell, I'm still not over the "Constitution requires government to allow people to kill babies." Maybe when I get over that I'll get around to being shocked by this.
quote:Where do you get the balls to offer women $500 to rent out their uteruses and sell their children?
Where does he get the whatever - I don't think balls is appropriate, because the operative brain part is lack of thinking brain cells - to compare "hey, please don't kill your child" with "renting out a womb."
I'm tired of trying to be civil about this. We hear all the time that pro-choice people aren't pro-abortion - they're pro-choice. Well, this law would simply give one additional choice to women.
What the f&^$ us wrong with that, Dr. Bitch?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The pro-life people are the ones who came up with the idea to pay women $500 to keep a baby they were considering aborting. I'm just asking why stop at $500? $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
The kidnapping analogy is meaningless, and simply a way to ignore the question.
How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm still not convinced that it's an effective idea, but I really don't see why the government shouldn't provide incentives as a matter of policy. As others have pointed out, what's the difference between this and incentives for, say, solar panels or hybrid cars? The government is merely trying to influence behavior through non-coercive means. I think in many cases, that's a lot better than passing a law mandating or prohibiting a certain behavior (California lightbulb guy, I'm looking at you!). I know that some people feel that it's such an important issue that we ought to ban the procedure outright, but it seems to me that since it's unlikely to happen, it's best to do what we can to influence people not to have them unnecessarily.
quote:If it's not going to be particularly successful, then it won't waste much money.
That's a good point, Dagonee! Silly me for not thinking that through. Although implementing the program may cost a little bit, and women who were planning to give the child up for adoption anyway might apply for the money as well.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote: Originally posted by MightyCow: How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
Loaded question. Targeting low-income women is an effective way to implement the program because trying to target all income ranges would be prohibitively expensive. So it's not about the value of the child, it's about cost effectiveness in a desperate struggle to save children's lives.
I'm reminded of Oskar Schindler. He couldn't save all the Jews, and he didn't even do all that he could, but he did do something and his efforts were noble. So are those of these people in Texas.
And the analogy is correct because we are looking at something as horrible as the holocaust. Worse, even. Here's a comparison: In order to make the extermination of the Jews palatable to so many Germans, they had to be dehumanized. Similarly, babies are now "fetuses." It makes the killing of these babies mentally digestable to pro-choicers, because they don't even have a human life in mind when discussing the thing being aborted. The woman is a person to them, of course. And her freedom of choice is something identifiable to them, unlike the concept of a fetus being a person.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Okay, there is no way that a discussion concerning abortion can be productive or respectful when you're comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It's insulting on so many levels.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Wow, 3 pages before the Nazis came in. Pretty good for an abortion thread
I'm done.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Insulting? 40 million dead babies since Roe v. Wade and you're insulted? Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You're done, huh? Can't handle being compared to a Nazi? Then stop killing millions of innocent people!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Insults to the pro-choice aside, don't you think it's just a little insulting to people who were actually victims of the Holocaust or had family who were victims?
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The pro-life people are the ones who came up with the idea to pay women $500 to keep a baby they were considering aborting. I'm just asking why stop at $500? $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
The kidnapping analogy is meaningless, and simply a way to ignore the question.
How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
No, your question is a way of ignoring the question, and a particularly accusatory way at that.
The question is "why does a woman have to be bribed at all to give her baby a chance at a life?" But it's pretty obvious the pro-choice crowd has no intention of ever dealing with that one.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I can see how that would be a concern, pH, but no. I think unborn children are as human as you, me, and anyone who suffered because of the holocaust. And so I am comparing the willful killing of millions of one specific race during a specific period in history to the willful killing of many millions more during an existing period of history.
If I'm wrong, then I am guilty of insensitivity to holocaust victims and women faced with a tough choice. If I am right, then you are as guilty as the Germans who let the holocaust happen (if you are pro-choice). Here's to hoping I'm wrong, because I sure hope I am. I'd rather be the one who is guilty, because I could forgive myself for my possible sin. I don't think I could if it were your possible sin.
Edit: to include your.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, my Lord. Everyone, calm the heck down.
We all know a huge part of the issue is whether or not fetus = person/baby. We all know that we disagree on this point. Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Insults to the pro-choice aside, don't you think it's just a little insulting to people who were actually victims of the Holocaust or had family who were victims?
-pH
How is it insulting to one set of victims to talk about another set of victims? Is it insulting to victims to compare the Holocaust to the (greater in scope) purgings in the Soviet Union?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Oh, my Lord. Everyone, calm the heck down.
We all know a huge part of the issue is whether or not fetus = person/baby. We all know that we disagree on this point. Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
-pH
Who are you addressing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Insulting? 40 million dead babies since Roe v. Wade and you're insulted?
You area moron. Thank you for demonstrating it so effectively.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Jim-Me,
"Why does a woman have to be bribed to give her baby a chance at life?" Please.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
As long as this is something done by both sides, sure.
But I don't think most of the posts mocking this idea were made with the understanding that the people supporting it - however reluctantly - are doing so because they think it might save human lives. Do you?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Jim-Me,
"Why does a woman have to be bribed to give her baby a chance at life?" Please.
-pH
I said "a chance at"
surely you can grant me that the baby will in the vast majority of circumstances, have a life if it is not aborted?
edit: genuinely here, if you prefer, change "baby" to "fetus". It doesn't change my meaning or intent one whit.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry pH, I'm not sure what you meant by that post. The part about sharing opinions.
At any rate, if the argument really is fetus= person/not person, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution? All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice, because look what the consequence is! Guilty of a human atrocity on a scope larger than any other in history! I'd like to be calm about it, but I feel guilty anyway because I'm not being as proactive as possible to keep abortions from happening. What if you were a German during WWII and believed that all those Jews might just be human beings? If you sat by and did nothing, would you be able to live with yourself?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dag, I'm not seeing what makes this a good idea, when there are so many other things that could be done that would be more effective (such as REAL sex-ed instead of abstinence-only). So I'm not really sure that these people are honestly trying to save human lives. I think if they were, they'd be going about it in an entirely different way.
I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I'm not seeing what makes this a good idea, when there are so many other things that could be done that would be more effective (such as REAL sex-ed instead of abstinence-only). So I'm not really sure that these people are honestly trying to save human lives. I think if they were, they'd be going about it in an entirely different way.
Only if they share the same conclusions you do about both the efficacy and the morality of those sex ed classes. I'm not particularly interested in discussing either issue at length, mainly because my views are certainly not in the majority on either side of this issue, but your quote only makes sense if you assume that the others hold the position you do about certain things.
And that was what you wanted to avoid, right?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I think it's woefully inadequate too, pH. But I give them more credit than myself for at least actively trying to do something.
Kwea, you're the only one demonstrating anything here.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I refuse to have any more to do with this thread so long as Resh continues with this Nazi fiasco. Resh, you do other pro-lifers a huge disservice.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think it's woefully inadequate too, pH. But I give them more credit than myself for at least actively trying to do something.
Kwea, you're the only one demonstrating anything here.
No, I just just the only one who is aware of how he looks.
Even the people who agree with your starting premise wish you didn't agree with them, because they don't want to be associated with you.
That alone should tell you something....if you are half as smart as you obviously think you are.
Too bad for all of us you aren't.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm pro-choice, and although I'm unsure as to the line between inanimate fetus and person, I believe that both stages exist before birth, and that abortions may routinely kill babies. Without being able to communicate with an unborn child, I'll never know.
I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
quote:At any rate, if the argument really is fetus= person/not person, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution? All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice, because look what the consequence is! Guilty of a human atrocity on a scope larger than any other in history!
No, I just don't value human life the way you seem to. Life is not sacred. There were undoubtedly many Germans in WWII that thought the Jews were human beings, and simply agreed with Hitler's reasoning that they needed to die anyway.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
-pH
Not that you were addressing me here, but I think that most of the people posting on the thread at all think it's, at best, a woefully ineffective strategy.
But some people here are walking around blithely demanding some sort of "put your money where your mouth is-- how much are you willing to pay for a fetus to be saved" and when I tried, by neutral example to show how ridiculous the question was I was dismissed and accused of dodging the question. When I attacked the situation head on, it made you angry for reasons that yet remain unclear to me because all you've done is confirm it's me who is ticking you off and roll your eyes at me.
Now, do you yet want to re-think about which side is being dismissive and insulting?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You want to talk about "disservice" and "insulting," and Kwea wants to call people a moron. This is a way for you to ignore the reality of the situation. You blind yourself to something you recognize within yourself to be absolutely horrific, and perhaps you see the torturous existence we pro-lifers have, having to deal with the knowledge of what is happening. Because it is just that: torturous. You don't want that existence, and so you believe the lies instead. Can't hardly blame you, but I do.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's awful, Eros. There is a such thing as righteous killing. And there is also a such thing as being mistaken about what is righteous. You are betting on your judgment of righteousness over the lives of millions. If you wish to continue trying to justify that, you are more than welcome. But don't be surprised when one day you are under judgement for that decision.
[Edit] The lives of the children of people you know over that persons freedom to have as much sex as she wants without having to suffer any consequences? These are your values?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You want to talk about "disservice" and "insulting," and Kwea wants to call people a moron. This is a way for you to ignore the reality of the situation. You blind yourself to something you recognize within yourself to be absolutely horrific, and perhaps you see the torturous existence we pro-lifers have, having to deal with the knowledge of what is happening. Because it is just that: torturous. You don't want that existence, and so you believe the lies instead. Can't hardly blame you, but I do.
I think you are a moron not because of your arguiments, but because of your tone, your attitude, your self-rightious behavior, and your high-handed bullshit tone.
You are a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum...and this isn't a first time, is it?
You know nothing about my personal views on abortion, or my religious background. You have no personal knowledge of me at all, but that doesn't seem to stop you at all.
You are acting like a spoiled little child, and I am sick of it.
Who the F#@K do you think you are, telling be what I think, feel, and then telling me I delude myself...simply because I don't froth at the mouth like you do? You try to say everything "they" believe in is lies, and your "proof" is that they don't agree with you?
BULLSHIT.
And it is past time someone called you on it, because it happens almost every time you post.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's awful, Eros. There is a such thing as righteous killing. And there is also a such thing as being mistaken about what is righteous. You are betting on your judgment of righteousness over the lives of millions.
No, I'm one person. My voice and my opinion are not law.
quote:If you wish to continue trying to justify that, you are more than welcome. But don't be surprised when one day you are under judgement for that decision.
I don't need to justify myself to anyone but myself, and I fulfilled that a long, long time ago. But who's going to judge me? You? Or a deity I don't believe in?
Trust me, if I'm wrong about the afterlife, a nebulous belief in what's right and wrong will be the least of my sins, and I'm not worried about any of them.
quote:The lives of the children of people you know over that persons freedom to have as much sex as she wants without having to suffer any consequences? These are your values?
Because clearly, support of a woman's right to choose is support of a woman's right to have sex without having to suffer the consequences. By all means, continue shoving your words in my mouth.
By all means, continue to think of these children you're so hellbent on saving as "consequences" people must "suffer."
To add: I'm willing to condemn what are potentially human lives. You're willing to condemn the hundreds of millions of people who don't agree with you. Which of us is worse, I wonder?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
Speaking as someone who is at least two nieces or nephews short because of abortion I'm certainly glad that the pro-choice side has volunteered them to give up whatever lives they would have had (again, on the assumption that they weren't alive at the time, they almost certainly would have been eventually but for the abortion) in the name of freedom.
To quote Otto Lillienthal, "sacrifices must be made."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
Speaking as someone who is at least two nieces or nephews short because of abortion I'm certainly glad that the pro-choice side has volunteered them to give up whatever lives they would have had (again, on the assumption that they weren't alive at the time, they almost certainly would have been eventually but for the abortion) in the name of freedom.
To quote Otto Lillienthal, "sacrifices must be made."
The pro-choice side didn't volunteer them; your sibling(s) did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's a good point, Dagonee! Silly me for not thinking that through. Although implementing the program may cost a little bit, and women who were planning to give the child up for adoption anyway might apply for the money as well.
That's a good point. If most women who take the money would not have gotten an abortion anyway, then I wouldn't consider the program particularly effective at its stated goal of reducing abortions. However, I don't begrudge the mothers the money, anyway, so I don't see it as a problem.
Honestly, the thing I see this doing is possibly getting some women to do a little more research into options. It's not much. But it's something.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The pro-choice side didn't volunteer them; your sibling(s) did.
Absolutely true. Edit: except to expand the list of possibles to include my in-laws and extended family.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hell, I'm still not over the "Constitution requires government to allow people to kill babies." Maybe when I get over that I'll get around to being shocked by this.
I guess that's the primary disconnect, then. The fundamental moral approach you have to the issue means that your support of the program is a crusaderly* approach that does logically follow your own moral premises.
Since I'm working from an obviously more detached and perhaps contemptibly relativist position, I will doubtlessly not be able to see eye to eye on your analysis, and that's just the way it works.
I'm going to continue to steadfastly maintain that I think that its a sucky and stupid program that vigorously attacks the problem from a totally wrong angle!
*not pejorative
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Research into options is always good. In my opinion, doctors should inform patients of all their options and point them to the resources they need.
quote:All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice...
Reshpeckobiggle, I put human lives at risk all the time for my own convenience. It's called driving. Additionally, what about the people who argue that animals are people? Should I never eat steak because of the slight probability that the animal it came from was, in some sense, a person? I actually think you have a reasonable point, that if we don't know (or can't agree) that the fetus isn't human, it's better to protect it. I think there's more room for disagreement than you're allowing, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
While I certainly agree that there has been substantial criticism of this idea on the grounds that it would be ineffective, a quick perusal of the first page found me five rejections that definitely weren't grounded in that particular criticism.
*shrug* It was certainly there, but it wasn't the majority opinion.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm going to continue to steadfastly maintain that I think that its a sucky and stupid program that vigorously attacks the problem from a totally wrong angle!
I don't disagree, and I think most of the pro-life side joins us there... the problem is that attacking this problem from the right angle gets you labeled as "not fighting fair" and "dodging the question of what you personally are doing to fix the problem."
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
If a woman making $50,000 a year is aborting, she clearly isn't doing so for economic reasons. I'm not sure we could fix any reasons she might have, and I'm not sure anyone would want us so far in her business that we'd know how. But if women are aborting because they can't afford it, we can offer them more money.
It might not be perfect, it might not even be the most effective way to address it, but it certainly raises awareness. Upping per capita Medicaid payments would never do that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Strengthening medicaid benefits and support networks certainly does, though. If the resources are available, women will be more inclined to see what the state can do for them, as opposed to .. say, immediately checking in with the nearest Planned Parenthood.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wow, I'm so not sorry to have not gotten seriously involved in this one.
Papa Janitor? This has gotten to the nazi-comparison and snarling epithets stage...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Looks like some people are trying to rein it in now.
As long as the psychics stop telling us what we REALLY think /mean we should be fine for now, but it is not my call.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry I was away from home when all the ruckus happened. I appreciate that folks appear to be more restrained in their posting now (hopefully that hasn't changed since I started typing). Please let it continue from all sides, or I'll resign myself to locking another thread, which I hate doing. Please help me not to make that choice.
A reminder for all (though many/most know it and act as such): just because you know a person's position on one subject doesn't mean you know how they arrived at the position or what postulates they accept regarding it, and it doesn't mean you necessarily know that person's opinion/position on anything else. And to go a bit further, just because you think you know a person's position doesn't mean you do.
And believing someone has crossed a line doesn't give one license to respond in kind.
We all know this to be one of the most heated topics we ever have at this site. This is mainly because (it seems to me) no matter which "side" one finds oneself on, most people agree that it's important. Because of that (in part, at least), I try to give as much leeway as possible to the thread and the discussion. But I think that for the same reason, it's all the more important to keep one's cool if one is to take part in the discussion at all.
--PJ
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This is a completely impractical idea.... besides, it might convince desperate teenagers to get pregnant just to get some easy cash... definitely a BAD idea.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Possibly, but it doesn't seem worth the pain and inconvenience. I mean, I've also heard the claim that people on welfare have more children to get more money, but I'm pretty skeptical of the idea.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Possibly, but it doesn't seem worth the pain and inconvenience. I mean, I've also heard the claim that people on welfare have more children to get more money, but I'm pretty skeptical of the idea.
That is very optimistic of you. A very serious current news incident has charges of doing exactly that: death of Rebecca Riley.
quote:Prosecutors will allege that Carolyn and Michael Riley poisoned their 4-year-old daughter because she was not providing them with sufficient money from government assistance programs, the mother's defense lawyer said yesterday.
It's a difficult subject to broach, and it contains a lot of very difficult things for both sides of the welfare debate to acknowledge, so very little is ever discussed about it outside of heated debates similar to this very abortion discussion (I use the term loosely). However, there are notable cases of this happening, and only the most monstrous of such cases ever become newsworthy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I haven't read all 3 pages, so excuse me if someone has made my point. From my quick scan it looked like the conversation was fur afield of it.
Anyway, as a pro-choice person I have absolutely no problem with this. As a Libertarian I have a problem with the government giving other people's money away. Never the less, I think this idea is reasonable given all the other money we throw around so long as the woman in question gives her baby up for adoption. A woman who can't afford a baby still won't be able to afford one with a $500 check. And if it's not a matter of being able to afford a baby... well, a woman who loves a $500 check more than her child... I'd rather she give it to someone who will love it.
HOWEVER, What I think would be a better solution would be to streamline the adoption process. I know some of us here have looked into adoption and it's a major pain in the butt. If biological parents had to jump through this many hoops, the human race would have died in one generation. CPR classes? FBI investigations? Home inspections? Form after Form after Form? Crazy. And this is just from the adoptive parents side. Get rid of some of this and up the demand.
How about letting the adoptive parents give the biological mother money (beyond paying her medical bills) up to $5,000. This gets the government out of it and creates a market. I know it sounds terrible to create a market for children and I know there's a potential kidnapping (which is why the fee is limited to $5000) problem but I think this is more likely to reduce abortions and increase the supply of adoptions than a small government check.
Posted by Perplexity'sDaughter (Member # 9668) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: This is a completely impractical idea.... besides, it might convince desperate teenagers to get pregnant just to get some easy cash... definitely a BAD idea.
Yes, because only teenagers are that stupid, right?
Come on. I would hardly call carrying a baby for nine months and then giving birth "easy cash".
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think you are a moron not because of your arguiments, but because of your tone, your attitude, your self-rightious behavior, and your high-handed bullshit tone.
You are a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum...and this isn't a first time, is it?
You know nothing about my personal views on abortion, or my religious background. You have no personal knowledge of me at all, but that doesn't seem to stop you at all.
You are acting like a spoiled little child, and I am sick of it.
Who the F#@K do you think you are, telling be what I think, feel, and then telling me I delude myself...simply because I don't froth at the mouth like you do? You try to say everything "they" believe in is lies, and your "proof" is that they don't agree with you?
BULLSHIT.
And it is past time someone called you on it, because it happens almost every time you post.
Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
Shigosei, the difference with risking other peoples lives every time you get behind the wheel of a car is that you aren't intentionally trying to kill anyone when you do it. An abortionist is most certainly trying to kill something when he does what he does, and that something is quite possible a human being. This explains the vitriolic responses the we pro-lifers are so used to: You must dehumanize the babies and demonize or infantalize the detractors.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pix, doesn't that sort of thing already happen all the time with private lawyer-mediated adoptions?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not legally, rivka. There are expense reimbursements allowed, and sometimes that can include living expenses during pregnancy, but payments in excess of costs are forbidden.
I realize you didn't comment on whether it happened legally, and, of course, your absolutely right that it does happen. I'm not sure about "all the time," though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think I've been watching too many Movies of the Week. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
I know more about you, because of your attitude, ignorance, and your tendency to attack everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with your arguments.
Judging by my actions, all you should be able to tell is I object to your type of BS, and I don't like it when people try to tell others what they REALLY mean, or pretend they know what others think.
I am hardly the only one to think of you this way, but I suppose you will claim it is all a plot against you or something.
God knows it couldn't possibly be because you don't communicate your ideas well, and always manage to offend people who have the audacity to disagree with you. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Resh, why are you even participating in this thread? You aren't here to discuss anything, you're just here to call people babykillers. You haven't contributed anything beyond your feelings on the issue and how that translates into how you think everyone who is pro-choice is evil.
For someone who doesn't appreciate vitriolic responses, you certainly indulge in them quite a bit more than, well, anyone else here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
No, you're calling people nazis and berating them for being killers.
Just stop. Jesus. Before the thread gets locked. You've already shipwrecked yourself, now don't go crashing the tea party for everybody else.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"Please stop, we don't like being called names! Just because we support the execution of unborn children at the whim of the child's mother doesn't make us Nazis!"
No it doesn't make you Nazis. That's an unfair comparison. The Nazis killed and supported the killing of unborn children, born children, mothers of children, fathers of children, and anyone else they didn't like. Pro-choicers restrict their support of killing to only the first group. So you have a point. I'll stop comparing you to Nazis.
So I haven't contributed anything beyond my fellings on the issue? What do you want, facts? Unfortunately I don't have the facts on my side, only you do. 40 million dead children; that's not a fact, that's an inflammatory remark designed to harm. But a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby=plain fact, and how could I think otherwise? What's wrong with me? The thought of all those dead innocents must be affecting my emotions, because all I can do is spout off a bunch of negativity toward those who are complicit in those killings.
I guess I shouldn't express those feelings, because the thread might get locked. Not because I've been cursed at, called names, and basically told to shut up because I have the audacity to say something that offends your cherished notions of a woman's equality to mate with whomever she wants without having to suffer the biological consequences. Did someone point out that there is some immorality there? Denounce him for trying to make us subject to his definition of morality. Oh, wait, there are more of these people who want to impose their morality on us, and this is a democratic society? What a pickle! Let's just subvert the democratic process and make them subject to our morality instead.
This is evil, and if you want to accuse me of... whatever, for saying so, then fine. But I didn't make it evil. I'm just pointing it out. And the cries and denunciations become most shrill when they come from the accused who is guilty. So let me have it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Resh, you've already made it perfectly clear in previous posts that it's okay for men to sleep around and not women. You've made it perfectly clear that you think anyone who is pro-choice is a babykiller (and how? Many pro-choicers haven't had abortions. Many pro-choicers don't even have uteruses [uteri?]). We know this. We know you don't want to discuss anything. Please let everyone else continue the discussion free of your rantings.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
By the way, Eros, and I said this before in a lengthy discussion about abortion on another thread, I don't think pro-choicer's are evil. I think they are misguided and delusional. Unless you support abortion with full awareness that what is being aborted is possibly, and quite probably a person. In that case, yes I do think you are evil. But most pro-choicers, even while somtimes admitting to that possibility, do not fully comprehend what it is that they are admitting.
While I may be wrong about that, I refuse to think otherwise, because then I would have to entertain the notion that either pro-choicers really are evil or that my definition of evil is wrong. I would assume the latter before the former. I don't think people are bad, except for the few that are. But I also am not exactly willing to abandon the idea that killing innocent people for mere convenience is not evil. And so, I am am left with "mis-informed and delusional."
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
At least you're openly honest about it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry, pH, but those things are not true. I never said it's ok for men to sleep around. I just said once that there are simple biological consequences that women must accept that men, right or wrong (wrong) oftentimes do not. Killing the child should not be an alternative to that imbalance.
Also, I said that anyone who is pro-choice is is complicit in what amounts to killing a baby. There is guilt there.
And finally, my post just above this one is a caveat to the "babykiller" accusation. The level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true. This is why in face-to-face encounters, I am nearly always very calm, and the pro-choicers is red-faced screaming and cursing, and displaying body language as though prepared to fight. And then, and this is the best part, I will invariable be accused of displaying foaming-at-the-mouth anger. It is quite a display, and it's uncanny how I see it played out on internet forums.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
I'm a pro-lifer. The things you say are "glaringly obvious" and "certainly true" are not nearly as cut-and-dried crystal clear as you make them out to be. I don't believe you when you say you are typically the calm, rational party in these discussions.
If you can't be such in an impersonal discussion, why on Earth would you be such in a face-to-face? Your participation in this thread does nothing to persuade or even educate anyone, and makes it easier for those who disagree with you not to listen.
Please stop.
-----------------
Honest about what, exactly?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks, Jutsa. Why shouldn't I be? The reason these things always go the way they do when I get involved is because of that. So many pro-lifers get browbeaten and intimidated into watering down their viewpoint because of the sort of tactics Eros, Sam, and Kwea use. I know I'm am going to be told that I am the one using intimidating tactics, with the Nazi comparisons, and perhaps that is correct. But I actually draw the comparisons out, and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!" But somehow I manage not to buckle under such withering assaults.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I realize I'm a late comer to this thread but I think this thread would be more interesting without the screaming and recriminations. It would be even more interesting if we stuck to the original topic about bribing women not to abort.
No one wants abortions. Not even pro-choice people.
No one likes to be told what they can and can't do. Not even pro-life people.
The only difference is which you value more. Life (or potential life) vs free choice. But we all value both.
So everyone take a deep breath, we're all friends here, and play nice.
Pix
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How am I not being calm and rational? Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
You don't think this is so cut-and-dried, crystal clear, and neither do I. I am aware of the negative consequences that this imperfect world has for a woman denied access to a legal abortion. I just have a clear and quite logical way of determining which decision must be made.
Fetus=Peson: yes, no, or maybe? If (fetus=person: no), Pro-choice. If (fetus=person: yes or maybe), pro-life. No way to know that (fetus=person: no). Therefore, Pro-life. My assesment of pro-choice: misguided and delusional or evil. I then use my Nazi comparison to establish why abortion would be evil, and my logical construct to establish why abortion would be logically invalid. When my opponents are faced with that, they have only two options: misguided and delusional, or pro-life (unless you are eros, who apparently opted for "evil.")
So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
(Pixiest=breath of fresh air: yes)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
$500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Good idea, Sterling.
Actually, that's a much better idea.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
A fine idea, except our native population is barely keeping even as it is. we don't want to encourage them to stop reproducing.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Excellent idea, especially since the procedure is reversible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How am I not being calm and rational?
I then use my Nazi comparison to establish why abortion would be evil, and my logical construct to establish why abortion would be logically invalid.
A more easily answered question I've rarely encountered in this discussion.
And as for why it's not as crystal clear as you're making it, for example...
Not everyone believes that personhood is an either/or proposition. If you don't believe someone is a person or is not, no shades of gray, then the rest of your little formula goes straight out the window.
Your average pro-choicer simply does not bear comparison to a hate-filled, murderous Nazi. That much is obvious. You going ahead and making the comparison certainly belies your claims of calm rationality. Equally obvious.
quote:Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
Hey, you can guess at what other people are thinking and feeling by what they type. You've said as much. Don't try to bust my chops for doing the same.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
Excellent idea, especially since the procedure is reversible.
While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
Pixiest, I do not believe your statement is true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: $500 is not enough money to cover the cost of a child. Not the delivery, not the first year of support. Quite possibly not even the cost of adoption, given the broad levels of bureaucracy that often surround such events.
As has been said several times already:
1.) There are significant funds available to cover the cost of pregnancy, both from the state and from adoption agencies. 2.) The $500 is only given to women who put the child up for adoption. 3.) As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
quote:At least you're openly honest about it.
Yeah, you could learn a lesson from him.
Not about being honest about your own point of view, but about the points of views of others, Mr. Black and White.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
I think he probably meant defraying the cost to the adoptive parents, to encourage more people to adopt. I have no idea what that costs, so I don't know if $500 would make much difference to it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My understanding is that we don't need in encourage more people to adopt newborns -- we already have more demand for them than supply.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Hmm...I'm curious about how much the demand exceeds the supply, and how that stacks up against the current abortion rate, but I have no idea how to go about finding that out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:encourage more people to adopt.
IIRC, adoptions of infants hardly need to be encouraged. Babies are in demand; toddlers less so; children even less; teenagers hardly at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stray:
quote: As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
I think he probably meant defraying the cost to the adoptive parents, to encourage more people to adopt. I have no idea what that costs, so I don't know if $500 would make much difference to it.
It costs anywhere from $2,000 to $40,000 out of pocket, and, as others have already said, there's still more people who want to adopt infants than infants available for adoption.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
According to this site, the adoptee/adoptor ratio is 35:1.
EDIT: But that statitstic doesn't divvy the facts up by age of the adoptee...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rivka: which of my statements do you disagree with? I'm assuming the line addressed to me is seperate from the rest of your post because I didn't say vasectomies are reversable. They're very often not.
And in any event, it puts an obstical in the way of our native population reproducing which is a huge problem.
Scott: The stats on that site are old and, in many cases, very questionable. It also quotes from some anti-adoption books. (how can anyone be anti-adoption??)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This one:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: A fine idea, except our native population is barely keeping even as it is.
The implied racial bias is a bit sickening as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pixiest is correct about some of the numbers on the site I linked being old.
I'm actually having a hard time finding adoption statistics that use data from the 2000s that address the adoptee/adoptor ratio.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
The numbers I hear quoted are closer to "often" or "mostly" with regard to how reversible a vasectomy is.
Even a 1% chance of reversal, though, is much more reversible than an abortion is.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rivka: Our native population is made up of *all* of races. I'm two of them myself.
Our current population growth is made up entirely of immigration. This is fine, except it's happening faster than assimilation can occur and we're at risk of being overwhelmed.
Of all people, Rivka, I would think you would understand the desire to retain one's culture (even as we fight to improve it.)
But this is a topic for another thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It also quotes from some anti-adoption books. (how can anyone be anti-adoption??)
I didn't read the materials quoted section, except to note the year, so I don't know about the anti-adoption flavah you saw; but doing more research on this topic, I see that there are a lot of anti-adoption websites out there.
I don't know that they're anti as far as the intent behind adoption is concerned; they seem to mostly be anti-adoption agency.
Still...yikes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Our current population growth is made up entirely of immigration. This is fine, except it's happening faster than assimilation can occur and we're at risk of being overwhelmed.
What do you mean by overwhelmed? Financially? Culturally?
The word 'assimilated' indicates to me that you mean that their culture and "our" culture are somehow at odds. And "our" culture should be the one to assimilate them-- you seem to imply that such assimilation is a good thing.
I do not necessarily think that cultural assimilation is always good.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Culturally. Most of the billboards near where I live are in spanish. My favorite radiostation went spanish a year and a half ago (it changed back, thankfully).
And it's not just here in San Jose. My tiny little Arkansan home town will soon be mostly spanish speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I love spanish. It's a beautiful language. I get along well with native spanish speakers. And I love the fact they've brought their food with them which I love more than possibly any other food.
But I also love my own language and culture. Especially equality for women and the growing tolerance and even acceptance for les/bi/gay people.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: did you edit your post? I coulda sworn more stuff appeared after I posted.
In any event, I'm a fan of the "Melting Pot" theory of America.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And as for why it's not as crystal clear as you're making it, for example...
Not everyone believes that personhood is an either/or proposition. If you don't believe someone is a person or is not, no shades of gray, then the rest of your little formula goes straight out the window.
But that's not how I put it. I said fetus=person; yes, no, or maybe. Did I forget any possibilities there? But let me be sure here... you seem to be saying that my formula doesn't apply if "you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Is that your final answer?
quote: Your average pro-choicer simply does not bear comparison to a hate-filled, murderous Nazi. That much is obvious. You going ahead and making the comparison certainly belies your claims of calm rationality. Equally obvious.
My comparison is apt. Most Nazi's were not hate-filled and murderous. They were convinced that Jews and homosexuals were less than human, and so it was not immoral to kill them. Another common theme is that they were aware that their cause was righteous, and so the old morality could be discarded for the sake of the cause. This is what has been happening in America and the West for several decades now. By whatever means neccessary, the goals of the left must be achieved. The ends justify the means. Usually this means subverting the democratic process.
quote:Are you somehow able to elicit my emotions by the way the letters look? Do they look different because I am slamming my fingers into the keyboard?
level of anger that this discussion generates, I believe, is more a result of the vehement denials of something that is glaringly obvious, and only blind rage can obscure what is certainly true.
quote:Hey, you can guess at what other people are thinking and feeling by what they type. You've said as much. Don't try to bust my chops for doing the same.
I was speaking from experience, not from anything any particular person in this particular thread has done (Kwea notwithstanding. That person has anger issues.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
So basically what you are saying is "Shut up, moron."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:and the only response I ever get is arguments like "Shut up!" and "Moron!"
I would be sympathetic to this claim if it were in any way true.
quote:So maybe you don't think I'm convincing anyone, but I am certainly placing pro-choicers in am untenable position that has got to be sticking them like a thorn in their side.
Actually, you're making them look better by comparison. The only people who are really not benefiting from your ranting are the ones who are unfairly associated with your position.
So basically what you are saying is "Shut up, moron."
Your inability to distinguish the two is what makes it so hard for you to understand why no one values your input in this thread.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Your inablity to see how Samprimary wasn't trying to make any argument but was rather telling me that I simply shouldn't speak anymore, and your inability to see that you saying that no one values what I have to say is basically just another way of telling me that I simply shouldn't speak anymore, is what keeps me coming here. The endless entertainment!!!
[Edit] I'll put it more plainly: "Your inability to distinguish the two ," (Moron...) "is what makes it so hard for you to understand why no one values your input in this thread." (...shut up.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The basic understanding that you're missing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, Resh, is this: your assigning moral qualities and attitudes to what other people have said does not make them accurate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: In any event, I'm a fan of the "Melting Pot" theory of America.
I'm not especially. And that is precisely because I value my culture, and object to it being swallowed up by the larger American one.
I have no problem with our population increase coming entirely from immigration. That would be one way to deal with it.
Anglos came a few hundred years ago, and essentially wiped out the then-native tongues. While speaking Spanish is personally uncomfortable for me (I have trouble with languages in general, other than my native English), I have no moral or cultural objection to such a transition. In many ways, it seems ironically just.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not in favor of legislating the melting pot.
I am in favor of everyone living with each other as harmoniously as possible.
I am in favor of encouraging cultures which are outside of mine to flourish within the United States, [EDIT] as long as they don't maintain an attitude of entitlement, priority, or aggression.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rivka: And you don't fear we might lose the tolerance shown by American culture to its plethora of sub-cultures?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The basic understanding that you're missing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, Resh, is this: your assigning moral qualities and attitudes to what other people have said does not make them accurate.
When did I ever say or do this? Are you like one of those guys(or girls) who talks about how much he hates Bill O'Reilly, but when pressed, admits he's never seen the show? Because I don't think you've read a single one of my posts! I think you've only read what other people have said to me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And you don't fear we might lose the tolerance shown by American culture to its plethora of sub-cultures?
Current American culture, you mean.
Naw. I ain't a-skeered.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: In any event, I'm a fan of the "Melting Pot" theory of America.
I'm not especially. And that is precisely because I value my culture, and object to it being swallowed up by the larger American one.
I have no problem with our population increase coming entirely from immigration. That would be one way to deal with it.
Anglos came a few hundred years ago, and essentially wiped out the then-native tongues. While speaking Spanish is personally uncomfortable for me (I have trouble with languages in general, other than my native English), I have no moral or cultural objection to such a transition. In many ways, it seems ironically just.
Agreed. If we're not willing to fight for our culture anymore, we deserve to lose it, and we will. I find handing over large swaths of America to the Mexicans preferable to some of the other alternatives.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I'm with Scott on this one.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
The numbers I hear quoted are closer to "often" or "mostly" with regard to how reversible a vasectomy is.
Not even close to mostly. There is a significant percent that aren't. Last I heard it was about 25% of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:basks in rivka's glossiness:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:But that's not how I put it. I said fetus=person; yes, no, or maybe. Did I forget any possibilities there? But let me be sure here... you seem to be saying that my formula doesn't apply if "you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Is that your final answer?
First of all, drop the final answer bullcrap. You're not some sort of arbiter who decides when the question has been answered here, OK? You're just a guy participating in the discussion here. You're not the Moderator of Online Abortion Discussions.
Second...the 'maybe' in your question refers to "maybe a fetus is a person, or maybe it is not". It does not refer to a sliding scale of personhood with respect to preserving a life. For example, convicted rapists or child molestors. Clearly, those are still people. Equally clearly, some people view them as less than other people.
By a similar leap, a person could honestly believe that a cluster of cells in a woman's womb is still "people", but so low on the personhood sliding scale so as not to have its life thwart a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
This is just one example of the kind of gray areas here you're triviliazing, and then shrilly demanding people accept as irrelevant. Thus I'm not going to answer your deliberately loaded question...and I'm pro-life. That alone should be some sort of indicator for just what kind of good you're doing.
quote:My comparison is apt. Most Nazi's were not hate-filled and murderous. They were convinced that Jews and homosexuals were less than human, and so it was not immoral to kill them.
I don't care what lies they told themselves. Most Nazis were hate-filled, and many of them were murderous, because they decided to believe that Jews, gypsies, and many others were subhuman, thus justifying anything that would otherwise be wicked in pursuit of their extermination. The lies they told themselves are a symptom of the hatred, not an indicator that it wasn't there. Another fundamental point you're overlooking to justify your comparisons and questions.
quote:By whatever means neccessary, the goals of the left must be achieved. The ends justify the means. Usually this means subverting the democratic process.
Oh, please. Just how much of a party hack are you? The Right doesn't do disgusting things sometimes in pursuit of political and moral goals? Hello! Jim Crow, anyone? McCarthyism? Watergate?
quote:I was speaking from experience, not from anything any particular person in this particular thread has done (Kwea notwithstanding. That person has anger issues.)
I was speaking from experience too. Unpleasant experience with you, that is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My what?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Yes, Current American Culture. We've come a long way and I'm not willing to give up equal rights as a woman nor am I particularly anxious to give back the progress we've fought for as a lesbian/bisexual.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While vasectomies are SOMETIMES reversible, no one should ever get one with the plan that if they change their mind, they'll get it reversed. Leaving aside the whole surgery thing, it is NOT always reversible, and counting on that is foolish in the extreme.
The numbers I hear quoted are closer to "often" or "mostly" with regard to how reversible a vasectomy is.
Not even close to mostly. There is a significant percent that aren't. Last I heard it was about 25% of them.
If 75% are reversible, I'd call that most of them. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Only of you weren't in the 25% of them that weren't.
I am not trying to quibble, really, sorry if it seems that way. But when you are talking about a procedure than will result in 25% of the people not ever being able to have children (at least not naturally), it is not an ideal solution.
You made it wound like there would only be a small amount of people that wouldn't be able to reverse it, even if that wasn't you intent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We've come a long way and I'm not willing to give up equal rights as a woman nor am I particularly anxious to give back the progress we've fought for as a lesbian/bisexual.
Cultural immigration doesn't threaten these things.
Immigration itself doesn't threaten these things.
Islam imported into the US is not a threat to Christianity.
Latino machismo (imagined or real) isn't a threat to feminism.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You made it wound like there would only be a small amount of people that wouldn't be able to reverse it, even if that wasn't you intent.
Gotcha. That wasn't my intent, sorry!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Only if they're thrown into the soup a little at a time. En mass, our culture and all of our own subcultures which we hold so dear are in jeopardy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Latino machismo (imagined or real) isn't a threat to feminism.
A large influx of conservative Catholics might be, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think you are being a moron. I never said you were stupid. (although I wonder)
You constantly insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, assign motivations to others, claim to know how and what they justify their action with, and compare them to Nazis.
You fail to ever, even once, admit that you have these problems (and not just with me) over and over again because you aren't communicating well. I believe that you ARE communicating well....too well.
You disdain for others, your feelings of moral and intellectual superiority, and your smugness come across loud and clear. I just don't know of you realize that is what you communicate....with almost every post.
If someone disagrees with you it is because they are the equivalent to genocidal killers...what part of that did you think was conducive to civil discourse?
Do you honestly think that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who disagrees with you... including the Supreme Count for God's sake.... are simpletons who haven t' considered all the aspects of this situations over and over again? That somehow they are all equal...even though they believe things for different reasons?
My problem has never been with your arguments. Most of them have been so weak that I didn't even have to refute them...others do it far better, and far more often.
You constantly and consistantly make an ass of yourself. Not for arguing positions, but for the way you interact with the people on this board. Other people who hold the same positions as you are embarrassed that they have to agree with you...I know it has happened to me more than once. I just don't post, because I don't want to feed you.
You are one of the largest symptoms of what is wrong with Hatrack these days. You aren't' a cause...you don't matter that much. But there was a time where I liked posting debates here. Now I rarely start a topic like that, because I will have to listen to someone with twice as much arrogance as sense (like you) spout off, insulting the very people I want to engage in conversation.
Here is a news flash, kid...it is possible to disagree with someone without shitting all over them. Dag and I do it all the time. So do Tom and I. I disagree with people all the time here, and we never act the way you do in every single post!
Anger issues aside (that was funny), I acted so strongly this time because I feel we have cut you too much slack for far too long as it is.
Enough is enough.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A large influx of conservative Catholics might be, though.
HELLO! We're in the thread!
(in all fairness, I am lapsed)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:You made it wound like there would only be a small amount of people that wouldn't be able to reverse it, even if that wasn't you intent.
Gotcha. That wasn't my intent, sorry!
I didn't think it was....just trying to make sure we are on the same page. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, you're already here, though.
Seriously, I can understand why someone concerned with equal rights for women and with gay/lesbian/bisexual rights would be concerned with a shift in the voting population toward even more conservatism.
It worries me, too. Not that I think there is anything we could or should do about it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A large influx of conservative Catholics might be, though.
HELLO! We're in the thread!
(in all fairness, I am lapsed)
Funny thing is ... so am I. According to them, anyway. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: My what?
Yeah, we're not going to start on the hair-stroking and stalking again, are we? It took OODLES of therapy for me to get over that. Kind of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If Scott started stalking me, does that mean I'd actually get to meet him?
Might be worth it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Only if they're thrown into the soup a little at a time. En mass, our culture and all of our own subcultures which we hold so dear are in jeopardy.
I disagree. I think this is fear mongering.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I can understand why someone concerned with equal rights for women and with gay/lesbian/bisexual rights would be concerned with a shift in the voting population toward even more conservatism.
It worries me, too. Not that I think there is anything we could or should do about it.
Have national politics ever moved right because of mass immigration?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As has been said several times already:
1.) There are significant funds available to cover the cost of pregnancy, both from the state and from adoption agencies. 2.) The $500 is only given to women who put the child up for adoption. 3.) As for costs of adoption based on bureaucracy, it is incredibly rare for the birth mother to pay any of those fees at all.
As far as #2, failed to realize, mea culpa. But for the other two, it's worth recognizing that deferred costs still exist, and much of the costs mentioned would probably be shouldered by the state. $500 paid to a mother to deliver and give their child up for adoption is an addition to the costs of delivery, adoption, etc.; $500 paid in addition to a vasectomy is pretty much the end of it. *If* the goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.
And I recognize the whole thing is pretty much hypothetical; I don't think the bill mentioned in the article is likely to pass, and I don't think a vasectomy bill would either.
(Then again, I understand the Texas legislature is a stange place...)
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: A fine idea, except our native population is barely keeping even as it is. we don't want to encourage them to stop reproducing.
I tend to agree that this could easily fill another thread on it's own, so I'll state my own view and try to be brief.
I don't know that the U.S. population continuing to rise is necessarily beneficial for our country. We consume more resources per capita than any other nation on the planet; the cost of a college education continues to rise, and the kinds of jobs that can support a family and don't require a college education continue to be exported to countries with less expensive labor markets. I think the U.S. is heading towards an inevitable decline in quality of life, and I think a population curve that only goes upward is likely to accelerate that trend before compensating measures can be taken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think it has moved righte economically. It moved left economically due to mass immigration, but the politics of the folks coming in were left of those of the country. I don't see why it couldn't go the other way when it comes to social policies - especially since the "family values" stuff has entered the political sphere. I don't think that was as much of an issue during other times of mass immigration. Though I am thinking pre-WWI immigration.
As I said, though, I don't think there is anything we either can or should do about it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mass immigration always makes a huge change. That's how my white ancestors took this country from my native american ancestors. It's how we took Texas from Mexico and took Hawai'i from the Hawai'ians.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This keeps happening. One is tempted to conclude that this really is a problem with me and not my arguments. I see it as being one of two ways. Either I really am an idiot, an arrogant ass, and patently offensive to everyone I disagree with, or I am right, I am stating painful truths, and my opponents cannot accept these truths and instead lash out at me, and excuse themselves by accusing me of provoking them.
I am hard pressed to find an objective way of determining which is the case, but for one thing: My little concise formula which is rarely ever addressed directly. This is the third time I've expressed my logical construct in three different ways, and the reason why it is dodged and the ad hominems begin is because when someone does try, they end up with some incoherent thing like Rakeesh. The only reason why he is even able to try is because he is pro-life, so he can process the concepts. But a sliding scale, Rakeesh? What are you talking about? Yes; no; maybe. How much simpler can you get? So I give you credit for trying, Rakeesh, it's more than anyone else ever tries.
And my "final answer bullcrap?" I was just making fun of your pathetic attempt at making an incoherent thought into a sentence. "If you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Are you serious with this?
"Jim Crow, anyone? McCarthyism? Watergate?" I'm the political hack? This revisionist history you've been sold is the most hackneyed nonsense I've seen yet on this thread. Apparently reading books by Patrick Buchanan and Robert Bork disqualifies my from rational political discussion, but Michael Moore and Al Franken are good enough for you to know better than I do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But a sliding scale, Rakeesh? What are you talking about? Yes; no; maybe. How much simpler can you get? So I give you credit for trying, Rakeesh, it's more than anyone else ever tries.
And my "final answer bullcrap?" I was just making fun of your pathetic attempt at making an incoherent thought into a sentence. "If you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Are you serious with this?
Resh, Rakeesh presented a fourth option - that something does not become a person at a discrete point in time but gradually, over the course of weeks or months.
Think of it like a pupating butterfly. When it starts spinning the cocoon, it is a caterpillar. When it comes out, it is a butterfly.
At any given time while it is in the cocoon, you are asked "Is this a butterfly?" Someone might say yes. They might say no. They might say maybe. Or they might say it's half butterfly, half caterpillar.
And remember, I am at the hard end of "instant in time" humanity. I don't think the analogy applies to human beings.
But I do think someone can honestly believe that it does - that an unborn child is becoming a person - at any moment it's more a person than it was a moment before, but not fully person until X happens.
You are doing us a huge disservice here. Not only do you make pro-life people look bad by association, you are also stopping yourself from truly understanding those who disagree with you. And, until you do that, you can't convince them.
If you got much better at what you're doing, you could probably make many pro-choicers look stupid or indecisive. But you'd convince no one - not the ones you make look that way, and not the ones watching.
Our goal is to change people's minds. You are useless to our cause as long as you act in this manner.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:I see it as being one of two ways. Either I really am an idiot, an arrogant ass, and patently offensive to everyone I disagree with, or I am right, I am stating painful truths, and my opponents cannot accept these truths and instead lash out at me, and excuse themselves by accusing me of provoking them.
Let's take a poll! We can even restrict it to pro-lifers. I wonder what such a poll would indicate?
quote:The only reason why he is even able to try is because he is pro-life, so he can process the concepts. But a sliding scale, Rakeesh? What are you talking about? Yes; no; maybe. How much simpler can you get? So I give you credit for trying, Rakeesh, it's more than anyone else ever tries.
I went in to more detail, detail which you have completely failed to address, instead reverting to your tired, "This is the question, the only question, answer it or you're full of it!" technique. Allow me to reiterate:
quote:Second...the 'maybe' in your question refers to "maybe a fetus is a person, or maybe it is not". It does not refer to a sliding scale of personhood with respect to preserving a life. For example, convicted rapists or child molestors. Clearly, those are still people. Equally clearly, some people view them as less than other people.
By a similar leap, a person could honestly believe that a cluster of cells in a woman's womb is still "people", but so low on the personhood sliding scale so as not to have its life thwart a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
To put it more bluntly: some people believe that humanity and personhood is closely related to things such as self-awareness, intelligence, etc. etc. I am not one of those people, but the perspective exists. For example, some people could credibly argue that someone in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease, brain largely ruined, etc., isn't really a person anymore. Someone could argue that someone kept alive on machines in a hospital, with zero or nearly zero cognitive function wasn't really a person anymore.
I'm not a doctor, I don't know the precise terminology for the ideas I'm trying to convey, but I trust you get the point. These are the kinds of things I'm referring to when I talk about a "sliding scale of personhood". For some people, despite your shrill accusations that they simply must fit into the round or square holes you've got punched into the wooden board of your argument, the answers "yes, no, or maybe" really aren't enough to adequately answer the question.
Someone could honestly say, "Yes, they are a person, but of such a low order of personhood that their right to live does not trump the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy." Indeed, if personhood really is a spectrum ranging from near-zero brain power to Flowers for Algernon levels, the argument has some credibility.
So take back your credit, Reshpeckobiggle. It's no good here at the moment. I've already answered the questions you've insisted I haven't once. This is the second time. The third time you insist I haven't done so, well at that point you're just an arrogant troll.
quote:And my "final answer bullcrap?" I was just making fun of your pathetic attempt at making an incoherent thought into a sentence. "If you don't believe a person is someone or is not." Are you serious with this?
It's a good thing you don't make posts intending to insult people, like you said in the CT fallacy thread! Freaking liar.
quote:"Jim Crow, anyone? McCarthyism? Watergate?" I'm the political hack? This revisionist history you've been sold is the most hackneyed nonsense I've seen yet on this thread. Apparently reading books by Patrick Buchanan and Robert Bork disqualifies my from rational political discussion, but Michael Moore and Al Franken are good enough for you to know better than I do.
*hands over $0.25* Pop that quarter there into the search engine and do a search for Michael Moore, and see what I've had to say about him in the past, sonny.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, thanks Dagonee. That's a much better way to get the point I was trying to make across re: personhood.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
As far as personhood, I hope this doesn't come off as insensitive, but here is my explanation. I know people who have had miscarriages at different points in development. The grief level seems different from those who lose the babies at 6 weeks vs 16 weeks. This is including women who have had multiple miscarriages at different developmental times. And the grief at 16 weeks is different than those who lose the baby after birth.
Resh- you said earlier that if the chance of personhood is .00001, then that is unacceptable. Considering that a woman's chance of dying due to pregnancy complications is .0001, does this mean that you find the baby's life ten times more important than the mothers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as personhood, I hope this doesn't come off as insensitive, but here is my explanation. I know people who have had miscarriages at different points in development. The grief level seems different from those who lose the babies at 6 weeks vs 16 weeks. This is including women who have had multiple miscarriages at different developmental times. And the grief at 16 weeks is different than those who lose the baby after birth.
Even if, as a general rule, this is true, personhood is not defined by how sad someone is when the being in question dies.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That would involve him searching out truth. If anything is obvious by now it is that he doesn't care about truth, he only cares about opinion.
And his opinion is the only one that counts.
Which begs the question.....why bother posting at all. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:As far as personhood, I hope this doesn't come off as insensitive, but here is my explanation. I know people who have had miscarriages at different points in development. The grief level seems different from those who lose the babies at 6 weeks vs 16 weeks. This is including women who have had multiple miscarriages at different developmental times. And the grief at 16 weeks is different than those who lose the baby after birth.
Even if, as a general rule, this is true, personhood is not defined by how sad someone is when the being in question dies.
I think it was just meant as an example of the continuum.
And I think the medical issue is a good one. If you're pro-life, at what point (if any) is a pregnancy too risky to the mother?
-pH
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Because it is disgusting.
I realize your position on aborting, Dag, and I think you know mine...we have had a "few" discussions about it here, haven't we?
But this seems like a horrible idea to me, and it bothers me.
Of course it's a terrible idea, it's basically paying women 500 dollars for getting pregnant, since any pregnant woman can claim to be considering abortion. Also, how feasible is it to pay every woman in the state who gets pregnant and claims to be considering abortion? In case the legislators hadn't noticed, Texas is a big state, this would be a nightmare for taxpayers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course it's a terrible idea, it's basically paying women 500 dollars for getting pregnant, since any pregnant woman can claim to be considering abortion.
Once again, only women who give their child up for adoption would collect the $500. So unless you think there are thousands of mothers who would sell a child they want for $500, this won't happen.
I know people have stated that women will get pregnant and bear a child just to earn $500, but I'd be really surprised if that happened.
If it did happen, though, I guess that would settle the question as to whether the $500 could cause a woman to change her mind about aborting. Seems to me that if $500 is incentive enough for some women to get pregnant, it'd be incentive enough for some women to stay pregnant.
Most likely, though, I doubt anyone would get intentionally pregnant for $500.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
It was more of an example than a proposed definition. Having just had a baby, one thing I found suprising was just how much pregnancy damages your body. I always thought it was a routine thing. Mine was pretty routine, but afterwards, my mom pointed out several things which could have led to death without a dr present.
Edit to add- $500 definetely wouldn't be enough to make me go through pregnancy again. I am thinking like in the millions before I would do it again, unless I was getting a baby out of it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I know people have stated that women will get pregnant and bear a child just to earn $500, but I'd be really surprised if that happened.
While I can't imagine it will ever become commonplace to become pregnant just to get $500, I can certainly see some misguided people making snap decisions in tough situations, ignoring or remaining ignorant of the fact that the math just doesn't add up.
quote:If it did happen, though, I guess that would settle the question as to whether the $500 could cause a woman to change her mind about aborting. Seems to me that if $500 is incentive enough for some women to get pregnant, it'd be incentive enough for some women to stay pregnant.
I can see a woman making the snap decision to get pregnant in order to make $500, then realizing what a dumb, unworkable decision it is six, eight, twelve weeks later...and then aborting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's how my white ancestors took this country from my native american ancestors. It's how we took Texas from Mexico and took Hawai'i from the Hawai'ians.
No. We took America through the use of war, starvation, deprivation, and by introducing sickness to indigenous populations.
NOT through cultural immigration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can see a woman making the snap decision to get pregnant in order to make $500, then realizing what a dumb, unworkable decision it is six, eight, twelve weeks later...and then aborting.
So can I. It's a good thing that's not the program, though.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Scott: Only if they're thrown into the soup a little at a time. En mass, our culture and all of our own subcultures which we hold so dear are in jeopardy.
You display a great ignorance of American history with statements like this. Half of the 20th century and close to a quarter of the 19th century beg to differ greatly with your statement.
quote:Mass immigration always makes a huge change. That's how my white ancestors took this country from my native american ancestors. It's how we took Texas from Mexico and took Hawai'i from the Hawai'ians.
Nope. All three of those examples were taken by force. Military and money.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We took America through the use of war, starvation, deprivation, and by introducing sickness to indigenous populations.
Well said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest.
Had there not been substantial numbers of Americans living in, say, Texas and California (questions of gold and silver aside in the latter), it is uncertain whether or not our government would've fought a war for them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I can see a woman making the snap decision to get pregnant in order to make $500, then realizing what a dumb, unworkable decision it is six, eight, twelve weeks later...and then aborting.
So can I. It's a good thing that's not the program, though.
Well...of they agree hoping to get the cash, then change their mind, what happens?
They don't get it, right? But they are still pregnant.....and who knows what they will decide then.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There have been other major influxes of immigrants that haven't led to conquest. Notably things like Irish immigrants to the US -- there were a million Irish immigrants during the potato famine, making nearly one in every twenty three Americans Irish.
Comparatively, the entire current foreign-born population of the US right now, including an estimate of illegal immigrants, is only about 33 million, or slightly over one in ten. Mexicans, the vast majority of that, make up somewhere around one in thirty.
And of course there were large influxes of Germans, and Chinese, and others, at various points in times.
That's just the US, too.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmmm.. ok, I've had enough of the name calling. I've been called a racist and ignorant now and I'm tired of it so you guys can go back to calling eachother nazi about the abortion issue and I'll leave you to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seeing as how women (and men) make the 'snap decision' to get pregnant all the time anyway, and change their minds all the time anyway...well, it's already happening a lot.
This is an effort to help stop it from happening so much. Every effort will have its downsides, there is no perfect plan.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am just saying that it may not help at all....and may even cause the opposite reaction once some idiot realizes that getting pregnant for $500 was a bad deal.
Even if the program wasn't intended to be used that way, you know.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest.
You mean like the Chinese influx that helped lay rail across the country? You mean like the influx of Polish, Italian, Irish, Greek, and Jewish people that brought with them not only the hands and backs that helped turn this country from an upstart to a world power, but also made America one of the most diverse nations in the world? You mean like the constant influx of brain-trust (engineers, doctors, scientists, professors) from countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Liberia, and other countries that are keeping us ahead of most countries in technology, at a loss to their nations of origin?
quote:Had there not been substantial numbers of Americans living in, say, Texas and California (questions of gold and silver aside in the latter), it is uncertain whether or not our government would've fought a war for them.
You are aware that Texas was its own country for a short time there, right? We fought the Mexican-American war for one reason: manifest destiny.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I can see a woman making the snap decision to get pregnant in order to make $500, then realizing what a dumb, unworkable decision it is six, eight, twelve weeks later...and then aborting.
So can I. It's a good thing that's not the program, though.
I don't mean getting pregnant, getting the money, then aborting - I mean getting pregnant, realizing that it's not worth it, and having an abortion to get out of the pregnancy, without any money (and having less money from, presumably, paying for the abortion).
Edit to add: I'm not trying to say that this is going to be a majority, or even common, or even uncommon occurance.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We didn't fight it for the country of Texas though, and the only reason that is true is that we won that war. Otherwise they would have been annexed back into Mexico, and it would have been a failed rebellion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It would seem that people are ignoring a qualifier I included, for those examples
As for Manifest Destiny...consider for a moment. What was the single biggest outcome of a widespread American belief in Manifest Destiny?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We didn't fight it for the country of Texas though, and the only reason that is true is that we won that war. Otherwise they would have been annexed back into Mexico, and it would have been a failed rebellion.
Was that to correct me? If so, you missed my point. I pointed out Texas being its own country to emphasize that our motive was to push to the Pacific per Manifest Destiny, which is exactly what we did. Texas came in a decade later.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not so much as correction as added information. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It would seem that people are ignoring a qualifier I included, for those examples
You'd still be wrong. Texas was recognized as a sovreign entity. We wanted California because it happened to be in the path to the Pacific.
quote:As for Manifest Destiny...consider for a moment. What was the single biggest outcome of a widespread American belief in Manifest Destiny?
An America with two oceans as a buffer. How much do you understand the Manifest Destiny doctrine?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Not so much as correction as added information.
It was worthy to point out, since Texas offered a buffer zone for America after taking California by force.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was imprecise. The single biggest symptom of widespread belief in Manifest Destiny.
Immigration, that's what.
Texas was recognized as a soverign country, sure. Would've never happened without substantial American immigration into then-Mexican territory, though.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was imprecise. The single biggest symptom of widespread belief in Manifest Destiny.
You were incorrect is what you were. Manifest Destiny was an overt doctrine by government to span across the continent. Tactically, it provided America with greater security while it offered the economic advantage of greater trade. Furthermore, that you would even equate today's immigration with Manifest Destiny implies that you believe in some small part that there are designs to overtake this nation, which brings us right back to rivka's original misgivings about the complaint.
quote:Immigration, that's what.
Texas was recognized as a soverign country, sure. Would've never happened without substantial American immigration into then-Mexican territory, though.
You are either ignorant or intentionally playing dumb. Are you aware that nearly every American who moved there also accepted Mexican citizenship until the Mexican government began making unreasonable demands (like "pay taxes" and "don't own slaves")? The movement of Texas to becoming a state had more to do with the Tejanos in Texas, many of whom wanted Texas to join America long before the war.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, Kwea, tone down the vitriol. I don't know why Resh bugs you as much as he does, given all the trolls we've had here before, but that's no excuse for your tone.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Let me get right on that.....
I have been pretty much done with it (without orders from you) for a while now. I am assuming he means what he said (again) about not deliberately insulting people, for now.
I dislike orders, and people who claim to know what I am thinking and feeling.
Civil discourse means ALL parties are civil, Tom. I am just sick of this crap at this point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Furthermore, that you would even equate today's immigration with Manifest Destiny implies that you believe in some small part that there are designs to overtake this nation, which brings us right back to rivka's original misgivings about the complaint.
Where on Earth did I do that?
And I was not incorrect. The single biggest immediate symptom, outcome, whatever term you want to pick, of Manifest Destiny in practice was a massive immigration of American citizens from (generally) the eastern portions of the continental US to all areas west of there. Do you dispute that?
quote:You are either ignorant or intentionally playing dumb. Are you aware that nearly every American who moved there also accepted Mexican citizenship until the Mexican government began making unreasonable demands (like "pay taxes" and "don't own slaves")? The movement of Texas to becoming a state had more to do with the Tejanos in Texas, many of whom wanted Texas to join America long before the war.
This is beginning to seem like a habit coming from you. I made no value judgements about the causes of the Mexican-American War at all, yet you seem to be implying that I'm saying it was Mexico's fault. I'm not going to get into a knowledge pissing contest with you on this, since you've demonstrated with remarkable clarity in the Iran thread that you like to mind-read more than I like to put up with, but I'll just say this:
Had there not been a substantial immigration of Americans into what was, prior* to the Mexican-American War, Mexican territory, it (the war) would not have happened. Or at the very least, if there hadn't been substantial immigration, the circumstances leading up to the war would've been drastically altered in difficult-to-predict ways.
That's all I'm saying, so listen carefully. Stop calling me dumb, stop pretending you can read my mind, and if you want to do those things, well then get your butt back into the Iran thread and finish the fight you started instead of taking cheap little potshots at me here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Civil discourse means ALL parties are civil, Tom. I am just sick of this crap at this point.
*nod* So if you've concluded that civil discourse is impossible, as I have, that leaves you with two possibilities:
1) Uncivil discourse 2) Civil non-discourse
Of those two options, I think that #2 is better for the forum. You've spoken often about the need to preserve or recapture the tone of vintage Hatrack; one of the most important ways to do that is to call in the mods and personally disengage when civility becomes impossible.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Furthermore, that you would even equate today's immigration with Manifest Destiny implies that you believe in some small part that there are designs to overtake this nation, which brings us right back to rivka's original misgivings about the complaint.
Where on Earth did I do that?
And I was not incorrect. The single biggest immediate symptom, outcome, whatever term you want to pick, of Manifest Destiny in practice was a massive immigration of American citizens from (generally) the eastern portions of the continental US to all areas west of there. Do you dispute that?
Yes, because "symptom" and "outcome" are not the same thing. "Symptom" implies causality, while "outcome" is the result. I can agree that migration (not immigration) was a result of Manifest Destiny. You'd have to make alterations to your original statements to claim you said that, though. That would be ironic.
quote:This is beginning to seem like a habit coming from you. I made no value judgements about the causes of the Mexican-American War at all, yet you seem to be implying that I'm saying it was Mexico's fault.
No, I was the one who said it was Mexico's 'fault', because it was. Mexico was the aggressor, and rightly so. I'm implying that you are attributing aggressive motives behind immigration from Mexico to America today. But go ahead and claim you didn't say the following: "Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest." Then, you use examples of America's practice of Manifest Destiny as if they were even close to having any similarity to today's immigration from Mexico. That would be implying that Mexico has eyes for American soil, and there is absolutely zero evidence of this.
quote:I'm not going to get into a knowledge pissing contest with you on this, since you've demonstrated with remarkable clarity in the Iran thread that you like to mind-read more than I like to put up with, but I'll just say this:
Had there not been a substantial immigration of Americans into what was, prior* to the Mexican-American War, Mexican territory, it (the war) would not have happened. Or at the very least, if there hadn't been substantial immigration, the circumstances leading up to the war would've been drastically altered in difficult-to-predict ways.
You would still be wrong. The Mexican-American war happened because America had eyes on Mexican lands, and if Mexico hadn't provoked into aggression America would have become the aggressor. M.A.N.I.F.E.S.T.D.E.S.T.I.N.Y.
quote:That's all I'm saying, so listen carefully. Stop calling me dumb, stop pretending you can read my mind, and if you want to do those things, well then get your butt back into the Iran thread and finish the fight you started instead of taking cheap little potshots at me here.
I never called you dumb, I called you ignorant. I accused you of being ignorant or playing dumb as an arguing tactic. You, however, seem to be carrying quite a grudge over this.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I have just a few comments about things that I have read in this post. Note though that I am pro-choice, yet I personally believe abortion to be wrong and that a fetus is a baby. I also believe that it is not for me to decide what any other person does. I have no say in about what any one does with their body - only what I do with mine. That is why I am pro-choice. I don't agree with abortion as a type of birth control, yet when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, I believe she has the right to decide what she should do.
About the things I have read in this discussion:
quote: Originally posted by Sterling
If the desire is to prevent unwanted children, how about offering $500 to men who know they aren't going to want to have children to have a vasectomy? That's a far simpler procedure. It can be performed on an outpatient basis.
The only thing wrong with this thinking is that not all vasectomies work! I know this personally because I have a friend who technically shouldn't be alive as her father had had a vasectomy. He fathered 2 daughters after the fact, my friend Elisa being his 3rd daughter out of 4. (we know they are his because he insisted on DNA testing for his case to try to prove malpractice.)
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Most Nazi's were not hate-filled and murderous. They were convinced that Jews and homosexuals were less than human, and so it was not immoral to kill them.
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh: Most Nazis were hate-filled, and many of them were murderous, because they decided to believe that Jews, gypsies, and many others were subhuman, thus justifying anything that would otherwise be wicked in pursuit of their extermination.
While I agree that the Nazi cause was a horrible one,history tells that many Nazi's were average people, terrified of what would happen to them or their families if they did not go along with Hitler and the Third Reich, so, like this issue, that is not black and white that all Nazi's were evil who believed that those being persecuted were "sub-human". Yes, I agree that there were many who did, but you are stereotyping an entire group of people with your perceptions. For Catholics look at the sitting Pope - he served in the Hitler Jugend - a part of the young Nazi movement. Many were enlisted the same way because if they didn't, it would be considered suspicious and bad things happened to people under suspicion by the Reich.
As for this topic itself, The Netherlands it seems, have found that sex education actually does lower the amount of abortions! Holland has a sex education program on television that allows callers - mostly teens - to call and ask any questions they want to about sex. They are answered openly and honestly....and here are my statistics to back this up:
quote: Methods: Numbers and rates of induced abortions were estimated from four sources: official statistics or other national data on legal abortions in 57 countries; estimates based on population surveys for two countries without official statistics; special studies for 10 countries where abortion is highly restricted; and worldwide and regional estimates of unsafe abortion from the World Health Organization. Results: Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed world-wide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands.
That says something for sex education doesn't it? So, if children and teens were taught that sex is natural, (which is pretty self evident considering that we do, as a species, exist - philosophers need not add snide remarks ) and were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and either
1. abstain from sex until married,
2. not have unprotected sex, or
3. be prepared to handle the consequences of their actions ,( i.e. raise the child ) if they become pregnant
That is just my opinion, make of it what you will.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the numbers, JenniK. Do you know where I could find numbers on how many women are getting pregnant out of the total number of women?
I know about 25% of US pregnancies end in abortion, but I don't know how many abortions per 1,000 women we have here. I'd kind of like to know how we stack up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So, if children and teens were taught that sex is natural, (which is pretty self evident considering that we do, as a species, exist... and were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and either
* 1. abstain from sex until married, * 2. not have unprotected sex, or * 3. be prepared to handle the consequences of their actions ,( i.e. raise the child ) if they become pregnant
Not necessarily. Teaching that sex is natural in an open and honest fashion does not lead to any predictable behaviors.
Educating children about the consequences of sex may lead to the behaviors that you outlined.
There's a slight difference that's important, I think. The former relies on subjective moral positioning, and assumes that the current state of affairs is that sex is being painted as unnatural and that parents/teachers are being forced to lie and conceal things about it; the second relies on fact, and carries no moral baggage at all with it.
Also, "natural" doesn't always translate to "good for humanity."
Pixiest:
Sorry to see you go; we disagree on a lot of things-- well, practically everything. However 'racist' and 'ignorant' are not two words that I would use to describe you. If I've offended you, I apologize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Justa,
Here we go again.
quote:Yes, because "symptom" and "outcome" are not the same thing. "Symptom" implies causality, while "outcome" is the result. I can agree that migration (not immigration) was a result of Manifest Destiny. You'd have to make alterations to your original statements to claim you said that, though. That would be ironic.
I never said ultimate outcome, now did I? In the short-term, one outcome of American belief in Manifest Destiny was immigration. As for migration vs. immigration, let's pay a visit to our friend, Mr. Dictionary!
quote:Immigrate: To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.
I don't have to make any alterations to claim that I said what I said. So keep your irony.
quote:But go ahead and claim you didn't say the following: "Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest." Then, you use examples of America's practice of Manifest Destiny as if they were even close to having any similarity to today's immigration from Mexico. That would be implying that Mexico has eyes for American soil, and there is absolutely zero evidence of this.
For Pete's sake! Are you even listening to yourself? You take the trouble to quote me and embolden some of my words, and yet right in the quotation you're drawing from is the qualifier that negates all the clever little points you're making.
quote:Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest.
Now you can pretend all you like that this statement, with that qualifier, is making comparisons to any other form of immigration being tied to conquest, even though I explicitly said for those bloody points. I do not, and have never believe, or implied, that Mexico has some sort of goal of conquest of the United States in any way, using immigration or not.
And I very clearly did not say anything like that, either.
quote:You would still be wrong. The Mexican-American war happened because America had eyes on Mexican lands, and if Mexico hadn't provoked into aggression America would have become the aggressor. M.A.N.I.F.E.S.T.D.E.S.T.I.N.Y.
It's quite possible. But, once again, you decide to ignore a carefully stated qualifier.
quote:I never called you dumb, I called you ignorant. I accused you of being ignorant or playing dumb as an arguing tactic. You, however, seem to be carrying quite a grudge over this.
Of course I am! You're deliberately ignoring or twisting the things I'm saying, and I've shown this over the course of numerous posts, and acting smug while you're doing it. Stop it, and I won't "carry a grudge" over it-as if you weren't openly provoking me with all this selective quoting.
As for not calling me dumb, well, not in this argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
JenniK,
quote:Note though that I am pro-choice, yet I personally believe abortion to be wrong and that a fetus is a baby. I also believe that it is not for me to decide what any other person does.
I have to admit, this statement of belief seems rather inconsistent to me. For example, it would appear that following your statement of belief, it should not be illegal for a mother to drink to excess during pregnancy. Or it shouldn't be illegal with extra penalties for her to, say, shoot up some drugs. Furthermore, we as a society and as individuals decide what other people do all the time. One human being deliberately killing another is almost always a crime, isn't it? And that's deciding what other people can't do.
quote:While I agree that the Nazi cause was a horrible one,history tells that many Nazi's were average people, terrified of what would happen to them or their families if they did not go along with Hitler and the Third Reich, so, like this issue, that is not black and white that all Nazi's were evil who believed that those being persecuted were "sub-human". Yes, I agree that there were many who did, but you are stereotyping an entire group of people with your perceptions. For Catholics look at the sitting Pope - he served in the Hitler Jugend - a part of the young Nazi movement. Many were enlisted the same way because if they didn't, it would be considered suspicious and bad things happened to people under suspicion by the Reich.
If you had been making this distinction about Germans and not specifically about Nazis, I could sign on. But not for Nazis. Certainly, there are some exceptions. But for Nazis, I'm quite comfortable saying that it's like ten ounces of gray paint with one ounce of white mixed in to get a gray. Not a very gray gray.
quote:So, if children and teens were taught that sex is natural...
Scott is quite right. Teaching that is rather explicitly teaching an ideology, a political belief. And anyways, lots of natural things are things teenagers shouldn't be doing.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:it would appear that following your statement of belief, it should not be illegal for a mother to drink to excess during pregnancy.
Seriously, is this illegal? Because if she does it in her own home how could they possibly know?
Or should every publicly drunk woman have to take a pregnancy test so that the police can charge her with being drunk while expecting?
Or would it be only visibly pregnant women to whom this applies?
Perhaps it should be illegal, but I don't see how this could be enforced...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't actually know whether or not it's illegal, Bella Bee. I just picked that because it avoids the problem you have with using an example of shooting up drugs, because that is already illegal.
I have to admit though, I do think it should be illegal, some level of excess...as for enforcement, I think the only real way it could be done was in an incidental, cops-checking-you-out for something else kind of way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know it has been prosecuted on, at least in some trial cases a ways back. I don't know what the exact charges were or how it played out in court, as I didn't follow the cases.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Enforcement could be done during regular doctor's checkups, I think. I presume that fetuses that are subject to high levels of alcohol show signs of it.
Reporting this would be no different than a doctor reporting abuse.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Enforcement could be done during regular doctor's checkups, I think. I presume that fetuses that are subject to high levels of alcohol show signs of it.
Reporting this would be no different than a doctor reporting abuse.
Not that you would see at a regular prenatal checkup, not with any degree of predictability, and not on a consistent dose-response curve. It's beyond the pale to do this by fetal signs at regular checkups.
---
Edited to add: It just isn't something you could really diagnose even by ultrasound, for example, and ultrasounds are not done at most prenatal visits.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Justa,
Here we go again.
You really need to stop looking at it as a fight.
quote:
quote:Yes, because "symptom" and "outcome" are not the same thing. "Symptom" implies causality, while "outcome" is the result. I can agree that migration (not immigration) was a result of Manifest Destiny. You'd have to make alterations to your original statements to claim you said that, though. That would be ironic.
I never said ultimate outcome, now did I? In the short-term, one outcome of American belief in Manifest Destiny was immigration.
Oh, right. You never specifically said those words. In fact, you never said anything like it. You claimed it was a symptom, not a result. Now you're changing your story. Why can't you admit it?
quote:As for migration vs. immigration, let's pay a visit to our friend, Mr. Dictionary!
quote:Immigrate: To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.
I don't have to make any alterations to claim that I said what I said. So keep your irony.
It's your irony, so you can hang on to it. Could you next time go to Mr. Dictionary and look up the differences between words like "symptom" and "outcome" as well? Where is your cut-and-pasted definition of "migration" at? Are you embarrassed to learn that migration is temporary and immigration is permanent, meaning they are different? Still, the irony is that you are arguing as if "symptom" and "outcome" were interchangeable. For the immigrant versus migrant thing, you seem to not be understanding how your comparison of Mexicans today and the Americans in early Texas is flawed. The Americans who moved to Texas accepted Mexican citizenship, but only up to the point when the government decided to impose duties and laws they(the Americans) didn't like, which led to them wanting to split from Mexico. So, how is these even a little bit like Mexican immigrants today? You are going to great lengths to defend your poor example, but you have yet to tie it into modern immigration as to why you think it's a worthy connection to make.
quote:
quote:But go ahead and claim you didn't say the following: "Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest." Then, you use examples of America's practice of Manifest Destiny as if they were even close to having any similarity to today's immigration from Mexico. That would be implying that Mexico has eyes for American soil, and there is absolutely zero evidence of this.
For Pete's sake! Are you even listening to yourself? You take the trouble to quote me and embolden some of my words, and yet right in the quotation you're drawing from is the qualifier that negates all the clever little points you're making.
quote:Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest.
Now you can pretend all you like that this statement, with that qualifier, is making comparisons to any other form of immigration being tied to conquest, even though I explicitly said for those bloody points. I do not, and have never believe, or implied, that Mexico has some sort of goal of conquest of the United States in any way, using immigration or not.
Okay, let me get this straight: you said that someone had a point in comparing Texas and California to current-day immigration ("Pix has a point"), you mention yourself the example of the Mexican-American war, but you're not arguing that those events are anything at all like modern immigration? Then why mention them at all and say that the person who first mentioned them had a point in bringing them up? What is your point? That immigration has happened before, and sometimes bad stuff happens around the same time? If you are not trying to argue a causality, then what the hell are you trying to imply? Instead of over-semanticizing every syllable of every post, I challenge you to explain how the developments of Texas and California in the 19th century have any similarity to modern immigration without implying some underlying ulterior motive. You have yet to do that, but you've done a splendid job of backpedaling and challenging me to come to other threads.
If you say the connection I am calling you on is not what you were claiming, then take a paragraph or two to explain the connection you are claiming, or simply admit that Texas and California in the 1800's was a poor example.
quote:And I very clearly did not say anything like that, either.
Stop arguing with me about what you did say, then, and please explain to me what you are saying. Explain why you used Texas and California as an example if you are not implying, on some level, that the situations are similar. You have utterly failed to do that, while defending your use of the examples tooth and nail, and every time you try to re-word the original it still sounds like you are claiming the historical event and today have some kind of similar aspects.
You say you are not equating the past with the present, but you say this:
quote:Had there not been a substantial immigration of Americans into what was, prior* to the Mexican-American War, Mexican territory, it (the war) would not have happened. Or at the very least, if there hadn't been substantial immigration, the circumstances leading up to the war would've been drastically altered in difficult-to-predict ways.
That's all I'm saying, so listen carefully.
If that's what you are saying, and yet you are not making an implication about modern-day immigration, then you need to either drop Texas and California as an example or do a whole lot better than you have up to this point of explaining the similarities you are trying to illustrate between the events in your example and what is occurring today. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.
Why use something as an example for an argument if you are not drawing similarities?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not that you would see at a regular prenatal checkup, not with any degree of predictability, and not on a consistent dose-response curve. It's beyond the pale to do this by fetal signs at regular checkups.
How do you mean, beyond the pale, CT? I'm assuming you mean that since it is extremely difficult and subjective to detect serious alcohol abuse damage to a fetus at a checkup, it shouldn't be reported if it's believed to be there?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:
quote:I never called you dumb, I called you ignorant. I accused you of being ignorant or playing dumb as an arguing tactic. You, however, seem to be carrying quite a grudge over this.
Of course I am! You're deliberately ignoring or twisting the things I'm saying, and I've shown this over the course of numerous posts, and acting smug while you're doing it. Stop it, and I won't "carry a grudge" over it-as if you weren't openly provoking me with all this selective quoting.
You need to get a grip, take a deep breath, and realize that you are getting all worked up over a few words someone typed on the internet. Chill out and let the personal crap go. Or not. If you persist, that's your own problem, not mine.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How do you mean, beyond the pale, CT? I'm assuming you mean that since it is extremely difficult and subjective to detect serious alcohol abuse damage to a fetus at a checkup, it shouldn't be reported if it's believed to be there?
No. That is not what I meant.
It is more than "extremely difficult and subjective" -- it's that "the criteria for diagnosis that way don't even exist."
So, "beyond the pale" refers to "can't be done."
Other things might be detectable, such as a woman coming in visibly intoxicated to a prenatal visit. Although this wouldn't be diagnostic of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in any way, shape, or form, it is at least possible to assess it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm... should've looked at a fetal alcohol syndrome page before I presumed...
CT's right; at checkups, the doctor normally checks heart rate and size, and asks a few questions.
FAS may affect the baby's size and bone structure, but not the heart rate. It'd be really hard to distinguish (I think now) a normally developed fetus that's just small, from a fetus with FAS.
Hail CT!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[followup to prior, not in response to ScottR just above]
Note: by fetal signs
That is, by assessing the fetus in the way that one would at a routine prenatal visit. This is not the same as, say, "assessing the mother."
FASD is a complex diagnosis as it is. The craniofacial and other abnormalities of embryologic development are usually not detectable on ultrasound, because they are so mild. Many likely cases have no structural abnormalities. When craniofacial abnormalities are present, they are not diagnostic.
It would be rather like diagnosing meningitis every time someone had a fever.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hi, ScottR.
I know it was just musing on your part. I've been immersed in the FASD world lately for awhile, as my spouse has been a consultant on several national-level research projects for assessing FASD. It just isn't a feasible route, but it wasn't unreasonable to consider it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Justa,
quote:Oh, right. You never specifically said those words. In fact, you never said anything like it. You claimed it was a symptom, not a result. Now you're changing your story. Why can't you admit it?
I believe at first I said "outcome". Look, you can believe I'm changing my story all you like, or you can believe I wasn't precise about my choice of words, and accept the later clarification I made that did fit with the situation.
quote:Are you embarrassed to learn that migration is temporary and immigration is permanent, meaning they are different? Still, the irony is that you are arguing as if "symptom" and "outcome" were interchangeable.
I wasn't arguing that! I said I was imprecise! G-d, what is your problem?
quote:For the immigrant versus migrant thing, you seem to not be understanding how your comparison of Mexicans today and the Americans in early Texas is flawed. The Americans who moved to Texas accepted Mexican citizenship, but only up to the point when the government decided to impose duties and laws they(the Americans) didn't like, which led to them wanting to split from Mexico. So, how is these even a little bit like Mexican immigrants today? You are going to great lengths to defend your poor example, but you have yet to tie it into modern immigration as to why you think it's a worthy connection to make.
Show me where I'm making that comparison, and I'll defend it.
quote:Okay, let me get this straight: you said that someone had a point in comparing Texas and California to current-day immigration ("Pix has a point"), you mention yourself the example of the Mexican-American war, but you're not arguing that those events are anything at all like modern immigration? Then why mention them at all and say that the person who first mentioned them had a point in bringing them up? What is your point? That immigration has happened before, and sometimes bad stuff happens around the same time?
What was I trying to imply? Pixiest was expressing concern over massive immigration having leading to a major cultural shift in our society.
quote:Mass immigration always makes a huge change. That's how my white ancestors took this country from my native american ancestors. It's how we took Texas from Mexico and took Hawai'i from the Hawai'ians. -Pixiest
Pix has a point though, guys. Major influxes of immigration into those areas was, for those examples, a harbinger of later conquest.
That's all I said. If you're interested in knowing why I said it then, instead of, you know, reading my mind and deciding why I said it, you could ask. In which case, I would reply that I felt that Pixiest was getting a bit dogpiled (not unjustifiably, due to some of the potential connotations of the arguments she was making), and so I stuck up for her because she does have a point insofar as for those examples, major immigration was a harbinger.
Are those three words somehow difficult for you to understand? It means I don't extend the point to apply to other immigration patterns!
quote:Stop arguing with me about what you did say, then, and please explain to me what you are saying.
You're the only one who's needed an explanation from me about this. Either your comprehension skills are drastically lower than others who read it, or you're picking a fight. I don't think you're stupid, I think you're picking a fight.
quote:Why use something as an example for an argument if you are not drawing similarities?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because I was only saying that Pixiest had a point that in the case of the historical examples she gave, major immigration was a harbinger.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, OK CT. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a standard for gauging such things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You need to get a grip, take a deep breath, and realize that you are getting all worked up over a few words someone typed on the internet. Chill out and let the personal crap go. Or not. If you persist, that's your own problem, not mine.
Or here's a better idea: stop picking fights with me and deliberately misinterpreting the things I'm saying. And also, remember: you brought personal crap into it with your insults, and not me.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Wow, dude. You are way out there. You went through this much trouble for an argument you didn't necessarily agree with, just so you could argue with me. You don't have to worry about a thing from me any more, dude. Ignoring you sounds like a much more reasonable option than playing your game. You win the internet tubes, man. You are obviously a much tougher guy on the internet than I am. I hope that it makes you feel better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wow, dude. You are way out there. You went through this much trouble for an argument you didn't necessarily agree with, just so you could argue with me. You don't have to worry about a thing from me any more, dude. Ignoring you sounds like a much more reasonable option than playing your game. You win the internet tubes, man. You are obviously a much tougher guy on the internet than I am. I hope that it makes you feel better.
I made a statement. You then began saying I made an entire argument that I didn't make, and I defended my statements against your (deliberate, probably) misinterpretations. Am I supposed to be embarrassed by that?
Please, ignore me. I would love it. You certainly show no signs of actually paying attention to the things I say. Maybe it's because I'm a Fox News fan.
Freaking tool.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, OK CT. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a standard for gauging such things.
No worries. It's a clinical matter, not something that someone would know unless you had good reason to.
The list of things that can cause a fetus to be smaller than would be expected is huge (and it includes just "variant of normal," too, as well as commen things like maternal hypertension), going into the hundreds. So, as ScottR said, that isn't going to be useful. And the other things just aren't there.
I have other concerns about using prenatal visits as screens for FASD-promoting behavior, at least with respect to reporting to law officials. However, many of these concerns would also apply to mandated reporting of suspected child abuse at regular office and ER visits, and I support that policy. This leads me to believe that I haven't thought this part of it out clearly enough to make any substantial contribution to that part of the conversation.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Gosh, such hostility. What kind of world are we living in where a person can't call everyone a bunch of Nazis without getting into a fight?
Seriously, thanks Dag for explaining what Rakeesh was trying to say about the slidng scale sort of thing. The cocoon analogy was very helpful. I accept that possibility, but I still classify it under (fetus=person: maybe). Is that a problem?
Rakeesh, I still stand by my statement. I don't post things for the solely to insult, though I do find they come naturally at times. I've taken plenty of heat here without getting my panties in a bunch, so buck up cowboy. Besides, I called your argument pathetic and incoherent. Or your attempt at the argument. Whichever. You are probably a great guy. Better at being tolerable in an online forum than I am, that's for sure.
Gotta run, I'll be back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The cocoon analogy was very helpful. I accept that possibility, but I still classify it under (fetus=person: maybe). Is that a problem?
You can classify it however you like. That is not, however, a reflection of what they actually think. When you speak with someone on a point of contention, and they plainly tell you what they think, and you say, "OK, but what you really mean is such this that and the other thing and such," you're going to run into problems. Which is precisely what's happened here.
quote:Rakeesh, I still stand by my statement. I don't post things for the solely to insult, though I do find they come naturally at times. I've taken plenty of heat here without getting my panties in a bunch, so buck up cowboy. Besides, I called your argument pathetic and incoherent. Or your attempt at the argument. Whichever. You are probably a great guy. Better at being tolerable in an online forum than I am, that's for sure.
I don't believe you. Or rather, in order to believe you I would have to simultaenously believe that you have literally zero control over the things that travel from your brain to your fingertips, and all of the unprovoked insulting you routinely do is just pure uncontrollable instinct.
Such as a bunch of that last paragraph, for instance.
As for my argument being pathetic and incoherent, care to retract that statement? And your nonsense about Al Franken and Michael Moore? Among other things. Other people didn't have trouble understanding what I was getting at. Just you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The cocoon analogy was very helpful. I accept that possibility, but I still classify it under (fetus=person: maybe). Is that a problem?
It's a problem in the sense that it's an imprecise summary. The imprecision is the mix of two factors, certainty and personhood. One can be certain about the stage of transition and still believe it's a transitional stage. Or, one could believe that it's a transitional stage and believe that we can't even know the precise status of the current stage.
Classifying it as maybe destroys this distinction. It's also rather unfair to those who spend a lot of time explaining a highly nuanced position.
It's also a problem if you want to be an effective advocate. (The following is grossly oversimplified for illustration purposes and not meant to represent anyone's actual opinion.)
Let's suppose someone believes that a fetus deserves legal protection at "51% person," which they have precisely defined.
Now let's say that our measuring devices have a 95% confidence interval of 4% in either direction.
Then your maybe argument comes into play, quite handily. It won't necessarily be dispositive, but it's relevant to the person. It could conceivable cause them to change their mind about the scope of abortion laws without requiring them to change their principles.
Suppose, on the other hand, that there is no error - we can tell with absolute certainty that the "51% person" milestone has occurred. Your maybe argument is now irrelevant to them absent a change in their core principles. Your better off trying to determine why they think that milestone is the key one, and then seeing if those underlying principles can support an earlier milestone.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't believe you. Or rather, in order to believe you I would have to simultaenously believe that you have literally zero control over the things that travel from your brain to your fingertips, and all of the unprovoked insulting you routinely do is just pure uncontrollable instinct.
Such as a bunch of that last paragraph, for instance.
He's noted in previous threads that he typically only posts on Hatrack when drunk and has no control over what he says or thinks.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You guys are misinterpreting me. I won't say intentionally, but I can't see why this is so hard to do.
I am not applying my formula to anyones thought processes. This is how I classify the positions, for my own edification. Maybe some distinctions are being destroyed, but there is no way we can get anyone to agree on such parameters like when someone is more than half a person. The last time this was tried, it was to give the slave-owning South more representatives in Congress. Instead, I am keeping it nice and simple. "Is this a person?" Yes or no question? It is, but possibly an impossible one to answer. So I'll just go with maybe.
Here is where it starts sounding like I'm assigning motivations, and perhaps I am. But how else does am I to figure out why someone says or does something that I can't understand, and their explanations aren't, in my opinion, adequate?
I think that my three-basic-options formula leaves the pro-choice argument without any outs. One is forced to make an admission that will not hold up. And so, the arguer must instead completely dodge the question and come up with something along the lines of what I've seen expressed here, and elsewhere. The thing is, that something is so obviously ridiculous and to me, but because of the nature of what I believe to be the motivation for that dodging, the one doing it does not realize what he or she is doing. The nature of that motivation being: "I, in my subconscious, cannot tolerate the argument, because it is infallible." ---which it is, to me, and I have yet to be even mildly suspicious that I am wrong by anything anyone has ever said.
Yes, no, maybe. Anything that you try to place outside those possibities will almost certainly fall under "maybe." Give me something that does not, and I will probably shut up about abortion forever. (Granted, I am the one who gets to decide whether it is a maybe or not, since it is how I form my own opinion. But believe it or not, if it does land outside the maybe, I probably will accept it and concede.)
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Refresh my memory, how does your argument handle the 'maybe' option?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't believe you. Or rather, in order to believe you I would have to simultaenously believe that you have literally zero control over the things that travel from your brain to your fingertips, and all of the unprovoked insulting you routinely do is just pure uncontrollable instinct.
Such as a bunch of that last paragraph, for instance.
He's noted in previous threads that he typically only posts on Hatrack when drunk and has no control over what he says or thinks.
Actually I quit drinking. And I don't think I ever said that anyway. Oftentimes I would be completely sober when I started, and then, lo and behold, hours later still posting but quite hammered.
In response to my "control over the things that travel from your brain to your fingertips," I have said before that I find my point ends up being watered down when I attempt to filter my words. An unfortuante consequence is that people end up taking things I say the wrong way (sometimes.) But I despise political correctness, and I refuse to water down what I have to say. If you get angry, fine. That works really well for me in poker, and as Card said in Empire, in a debate, the one who ends up coming across as angry usually looks like the loser.
Besides, and this is something I've said before as well, I still believe that most people take personal offense at things I say because I am threatening their cherished beliefs. This because the targeted insults usually begin coming my way after I've made some generalization targeting no one specifically. I say abortion is akin to the holocauset, and I am personally attacked. I can see why someone would take that comparison personally, but mainly because there is truth to that statement. If there were none, I would probably just get laughed at.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:You guys are misinterpreting me. I won't say intentionally, but I can't see why this is so hard to do.
I am not applying my formula to anyones thought processes. -Reshpeckobiggle
If the difference between choosing to kill or not to kill an innocent child is, for you, 500 dollars, then you should be post-birth aborted. -Reshpeckobiggle
It makes the killing of these babies mentally digestable to pro-choicers, because they don't even have a human life in mind when discussing the thing being aborted. The woman is a person to them, of course. And her freedom of choice is something identifiable to them, unlike the concept of a fetus being a person. -Reshpeckobiggle
You blind yourself to something you recognize within yourself to be absolutely horrific, and perhaps you see the torturous existence we pro-lifers have, having to deal with the knowledge of what is happening. Because it is just that: torturous. You don't want that existence, and so you believe the lies instead. Can't hardly blame you, but I do. -Reshpeckobiggle
This explains the vitriolic responses the we pro-lifers are so used to: You must dehumanize the babies and demonize or infantalize the detractors. -Reshpeckobiggle
I could go on, but I think my point is made: you're lying. You most certainly are applying your formula to other people's (specifically, pro-choicers) thought processes.
quote:Yes, no, maybe. Anything that you try to place outside those possibities will almost certainly fall under "maybe." Give me something that does not, and I will probably shut up about abortion forever. (Granted, I am the one who gets to decide whether it is a maybe or not, since it is how I form my own opinion. But believe it or not, if it does land outside the maybe, I probably will accept it and concede.)
That's already happened in this thread. Today. But you insisted that it fell under your "maybe", or else was incoherent, or whatever.
You're full of crap.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Besides, and this is something I've said before as well, I still believe that most people take personal offense at things I say because I am threatening their cherished beliefs.
I'm pro-life I actually do believe that if there is some true doubt in a person's mind thata fetus is a human being or not, they should err on the side of caution.
But I'm still taking offense at the things you're saying, because you're routinely either lying, insulting, or deliberately ignoring the things other people say that don't fit your point, making pro-lifers look like a bunch of jackasses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have yet to be even mildly suspicious that I am wrong by anything anyone has ever said.
What's that like?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's completely liberating.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Look, Rakeesh. You aren't understanding me. I know what already happened in this thread. I say it's a maybe. How is it not?
.02 percent human, 51 percent human, somehwere between a caterpillar and a butterfly. !!!Maybe!!! Deal with it.
All the examples of my quotes you gave, those are my opinions. I am not going to write down "In my opinion" after everything I say. You don't, but I don't need you too. It's implicit. And the fact that some of the quotes you are using are obviously hyperbole and which I am fully aware would never be taken seriously, indicates that you are really not getting where I'm coming from. Oops! Did I just assign a motivation?
Of course , you just continue to say that I'm the one who is being dense, or am just simply lying. But it's either one or the other, and since I know what I think and I already said it --it's all up there, if you want to read it-- I'm just going to leave it at that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I have yet to be even mildly suspicious that I am wrong by anything anyone has ever said.
What's that like?
That was a statement being very specifically applied. Don't take it out of context.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stray: Refresh my memory, how does your argument handle the 'maybe' option?
[/nutshell]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I say it's a maybe. How is it not?
.02 percent human, 51 percent human, somehwere between a caterpillar and a butterfly. !!!Maybe!!! Deal with it.
I spent a great deal of time addressing the difference between certainty and status, and why "maybe" blurs two distinct and equally important issues.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
And the reason maybe equates to pro-life is because of the uncertainty factor?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Good point, Dag, and this is something that policy must take into account. I find the maybe to be very important here because it is the specific dilineation between whether I am pro-choice or pro-life. Not very many issues can make that claim.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stray: And the reason maybe equates to pro-life is because of the uncertainty factor?
Exactly. I've explained why previously. I'd rather be guilty of supporting restrictions on a womans reproductive rights than be guilty of supporting the wanton, purposeful killing of innocent people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, Dagonee has taken the polite, nuanced approach to making the distinction clear, and I took the loud, annoyed approach to making the discinction clear. We're both pro-lifers. In fact, I would say Dagonee is one of the more well-known, thoughtful, and persuasive pro-life advocates around here, not to kiss his butt or anything.
Think about that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'll give it shot.
Somewhere along the spectrum that is "maybe" we have to decide if that "maybe" is big enough to essentially take away some of a person's (that we are sure is a person) sovereignty over her body. We are not just making the decision whether or not the "maybe" is allowed to live, we are making the decision that a person (who we know for sure is a person) has to bear that "maybe" including all of the physical demands, discomfort, pain, inconvenience, danger, - everything from swollen ankles to the possibility of death. And the possibility of death for the mother is a real one.
How about this nutshell:
mother dies: no - have the baby mother dies: yes - abort the baby mother dies: maybe - ?
This is why it isn't so simple. True the risk of death is not great, that example was to make a point, but the loss of sovereignty is very real.
Those "maybes" overlap. For me the possibility that the "maybe" is a child is enough that I would not have an abortion myself*, but not enought that I would make that choice for someone else. Especially in the very early days.
*God willing. Of course, in my case there is also the miracle aspect to consider.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boots's point is one you've also failed to address, also. The one she made earlier, not this one just now, I mean.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
At another time and place, I would be happy to expand on kmboots' post by listing a series of other dyads in which we do not think that keeping one person alive is sufficient to constrain another person's sovreignty. This is another reason why Reshpeckobiggle's scheme (fetus=person: yes) Pro-life (fetus=person: maybe) Pro-life may not be adequate, at least not as "pro-life" is being used.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'll have to go look at her earlier one. This one... yes. The maybes do overlap. That is where one must weigh the consequences. I never meant to imply this is an uncomplicated issue. I just have an uncomplicated way of deciding how to feel about it.
(fetus=person: no) Pro-choice (fetus=person: yes) Pro-life (fetus=person: maybe) Pro-life There is no way to determine that the first premise is true. Therefore: Abortion=killing of person.
[Edit] Mother dies during pregnancy-maybe [end edit] Abortion=dead baby. Therfore, mother maybe dies.
It sucks, but that's life.
[edit] I know that wasn't a prefectly constructed logic tree, but you get the point.
[ March 28, 2007, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, CT. I know that wasn't an exhaustive (or even representative) list.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Resh, they were talking about health risks to the mother during pregnancy and childbirth, not an abortion procedure.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I know, pH. I was too, but I miswrote. I'm going to fix that.
pH, boots, and CT. This thread just got a whole lot nicer.
Claudia, I can imagine some of the same, but my objection is to the willful destruction of the fetus. I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby. This is where a reasonable person can place the varying levels of possibility of abortion=killing beneath the certainty of a woman's sovereignity. But as I said, I don't think any level of possibilty of intentionally killing an innocent person is less important than any of it's consequences.
Was that redundant?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you get why, even though the uncomplicated works for you, it might not for other people?
"Not knowing whether x or y" does not equal "default to x".
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Resh, at what point is the danger to the mother's life great enough that abortion would be okay to you? Is there such a point? If not, why does the fetus get more protection than the mother (since you've deemed that if there's a very small chance that it's a person, you err on the side of caution)?
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'll have to go look at her earlier one. This one... yes. The maybes do overlap. That is where one must weigh the consequences. I never meant to imply this is an uncomplicated issue. I just have an uncomplicated way of deciding how to feel about it.
I can appreciate simplifying things for your own moral consideration; without generalizations and simplifications, we'd be stuck in an endless whirlwind of what-ifs. At some point, one has to stand by a general rule in order to have an opinion.
The problem is that you presented your opinion as a moral absolute, that should apply to everyone, and that everyone who disagreed with you was morally deficient. And while I have no doubt there are other pro-lifers on Hatrack who feel those who are pro-choice are morally deficient, they aren't voicing their opinions as a condemnation, because that isn't conducive to discussion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby.
I can. Several of them. And, remember that, for some of us, it isn't a "baby" it is a "potential baby."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I honestly cannot imagine a situation where someones sovereignity as is threatened by the birth of a baby, can ever trump the killing of the baby.
Then you're not trying. I'll offer one that, medically speaking, happens all the time: complications during the pregnancy, something goes wrong during labor.
The chance of the baby surviving the birth is deemed, say, 10%, with serious birth defects. The chance of the mother surviving the birth, if the pregnancy is not immediately terminated, is, say, 50%.
Abort or not abort? Yes or no. Yes or no. Ad naseum.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Gotta run, so real quick:
Addressing pH and Rakeesh both: You do your best to save both. You do nothing to harm either, If you make the argument that not aborting the baby is doing harm to the mother, then you weigh that against the harm done to the baby, which is life ending, regardless of the baby's chances in the first place. Remember the Hippocratic Oath.
Birth defect should have nothing to do with it, if you ask me. That is a very slippery slope.
Ok, Eros too: Yes, these are moral absoulutes to me. I am using a moral absolute to determine that killing an innocent person is wrong. That is why pro-life falls over two of the equations. This is an argument about right and wrong, no way to avoid it. A separate argument is about the issues implications in Law.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So what you're saying, Resh, is that if it came down to it, you'd rather the baby live than the mother.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
These are not moral absolutes to everyone. It is often not about right or wrong. Sometimes it is about wrong and less wrong. Just because you can make it simple for yourself, doesn't mean it is simple. Or that it should be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Addressing pH and Rakeesh both: You do your best to save both. You do nothing to harm either, If you make the argument that not aborting the baby is doing harm to the mother, then you weigh that against the harm done to the baby, which is life ending, regardless of the baby's chances in the first place. Remember the Hippocratic Oath.
OK, well you've answered the question then. You clearly value the baby's life more than the mother's, since he/she has a very poor chance of surviving the birth in any case, and the mother has a very poor chance of surviving the birth as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Birth defect should have nothing to do with it, if you ask me. That is a very slippery slope.
Actually, I agree that just 'birth defect' shouldn't be enough.. I should've been more specific. When I say "birth defect" I don't mean something mild like a birth mark, I'm talking something gut-wrenchingly sad just to read about, like anencephaly.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Resh, at what point is the danger to the mother's life great enough that abortion would be okay to you? Is there such a point? If not, why does the fetus get more protection than the mother (since you've deemed that if there's a very small chance that it's a person, you err on the side of caution)?
-pH
Not to nitpick, but why use this line of argument? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, you know.
Ugly fact: there are many pregnancies that occur that wind up aborting with zero interference from anyone. The egg and sperm combine, the egg implants itself to the lining of the uterus, and a week or so later the body expels it for one of a number of reasons, and most of them not because of some factor like drugs or alcohol or anything (miscarriage). It just happens. Other times, the egg fertilizes but doesn't implant in the uterus, and even worse happens (eptopic pregnancy)
I'm not challenging anyone or anything like that, but since those things happen in comparable numbers to abortions, and depending on what you read possibly an order of magnitude more often, I find that talk of it equalling life gives a pretty horrific view of the process of conception. I was once told that if you are a sexually active woman, the chances are very high (some percentage higher than half) that this could have happened to you and you don't even realize it. Not every miscarriage results in sickness or dilation or any other noticable symptom outside of a heavy period (not to say that a heavy period means a miscarriage, by the way).
Conversely, we have recently seen medical science able to maintain a less-than-25-week-old birth. There was a time when 25 weeks was not outside of the realm of consideration for abortion (I could be mistaken, it may still not be). This simply must have an impact, but the depth of that impact is going to depend on the subject. Realistically, this is not the kind of medical breakthrough that means it is immediately an option in every case of a troubled pregnancy, nor does it mean that the odds are even close to "good" yet. However, it's been done, and that changes plenty.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Justa, I was asking because it sounded as though Resh valued the baby's life over the mother's. Apparently, I was correct.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It's not about value, pH. It's about actively killing one thing vs. having something die despite your best efforts. Of course it's not as cut and dried as that. I am describing a moral framework from which I think decisions ought to be made. My logical structure, while not acceptable for some of you, has one thing going for it, and that is that it is clearly defined. It's much better to have a clear goal when dealing with very murky issues. The only other crytstal clear position you can have is unfettered abortions, up to the moment of birth (i.e; partial-birth abortions.) This is a completely amoral starting point.
Anyway, if you're a doctor, or a woman in a situation like one of the ones illustrated above, you need to be facing a certain direction. What we are dealing with is not a wrong and less wrong decision. It is a moral and amoral (note I do not say immoral; there is a difference) decision.
A question; what general destination do you guys think I have in mind? Never mind how I'm going about anything. Is it a destination of morality and something that is good and right, or one of evil, oppresion, or just plain meaness? Something like that? Do you think my intentions, at the very least, are for the sake of goodness? How about pro-lifers in general?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Okay, re. the Hippocratic Oath and playing God.
To pick a crazy example out of the air - if conjoined twins were born (we‘re talking about two people relaying on one body, after all), and it was unlikely that both would survive together, but one twin had a chance of living - only if the other twin died.
Option A The chance of both surviving conjoined is about 0.5%. Option B. One twin has a 50% chance of survival, with a reasonably healthy body. Option C. The other twin has a chance of 10% plus disabilities (a criteria which you‘ve discounted anyway).
Would you see it as totally wrong for the doctors to do what they could to save one, using the odds that one has a better chance of living? Or would you rather he ‘did no harm’ and both likely died? Now in this case, both are babies. (Does that make a difference to you?)
I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B. I’m assuming you’d go for A, but I‘d like to know for sure.
This obviously has not a lot to do with abortion. I'm just interested.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's not a crazy example. O.5% chance of survivng? You have to do something. To do otherwise would be "Do no good!" If you put forth a similar situation in which there is a .5% chance that both the mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed, but 50% chance of the mother surviving with an abortion, I guess an abortion is in order. I'm not a doctor and I don't know if that is a very common situation (I doubt it), but I can say that that is the way to go, and with confidence, because I have a moral compass by which I guage the rightness of that decision.
Rakeesh, I meant to address this earlier, about retracting my statement about your argument being pathetic and incoherent. I won't retract it, because I think it is still essentially true, but I will admit that it was to harsh and I didn't need to say it that way.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Justa, I was asking because it sounded as though Resh valued the baby's life over the mother's. Apparently, I was correct.
-pH
Okay, that clears up context. Carry on. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not a crazy example. O.5% chance of survivng? You have to do something. To do otherwise would be "Do no good!" If you put forth a similar situation in which there is a .5% chance that both the mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed, but 50% chance of the mother surviving with an abortion, I guess an abortion is in order. I'm not a doctor and I don't know if that is a very common situation (I doubt it), but I can say that that is the way to go, and with confidence, because I have a moral compass by which I guage the rightness of that decision.
This moral compass of yours. At what percentage does it switch from "ok to kill one to save the other" to "do nothing, even though it will probably kill the mother"? And please keep in mind that all medical prognostic percentages are approximations.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I actually know a woman who was in a similar situation as Bella Bee's example. She took fertility drugs and was pregnant with quads. Based on her history, her doctor said, in his experience with his abilities, atleast one would die, probably all and so she should abort one, preferable 2 or 3, to give the best chance of survival. She said no and he referred her to a new dr. So, I would not consider Bella's example to be way out there. I got in trouble because I said without hesitation that I would abort 2.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is a significant difference in your example, scholar. Usually, all the fetuses in such a situation have equal chances of survival.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do not see the value in having a "crystal clear" position on an issue that is nuanced. Failing to acknowledge that a situation is not crystal clear (and very few matters are) has the advantage of making us feel good and righteous about our choices but it doesn't necessarily help us make good choices. It also tends to prevent us from seeing the situation from different points of view or being able to converse effectively or even persuade someone to see it from ours.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
To answer AvidReader's question from page 6: you can try looking at: Abortion Stats
quote: Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: In a nutshell: [nutshell]
To me (fetus = person: yes) Pro-choice. How does this work in your equation? I am just curious.
On page 6, one of the points I made was about educating teenagers that sex is natural . I also said that if we taught them that and taught them all about sex (inferring that we teach them all about the consequences, etc.,) openly and honestly they would be able to make a more informed decision. Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
Rakeesh, to answer your question about my statement (that I am pro-choice, yet I personally believe that abortion is wrong), this is the simplest way I can explain: If a person is over 21 and has been drinking, I can tell them that they shouldn't continue to drink if I believe them to be drunk already yet, they will continue to do what they want as I am neither their mother nor their keeper. I can't keep them from getting behind the wheel of a car if it is their car. I can try and I can even call the police, but I myself may not be able to stop them if it is their choice. (especially depending on their size)
There are circumstances that may make abortion seem the lesser of 2 evils to some women. I don't know if you have ever seen a 13 year old girl who was kidnapped, beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped and left for dead, but if that same 13 year old finds herself pregnant because of it, she may see abortion as necessary to her mental and physical health. I can't say what I would do in this situation because I haven't been there, my cousin (6 weeks younger than me) wanted to kill herself when this happened to her. Many woman have found themselves in similar circumstances.
I think it was Resh who said " I'd rather be guilty of promoting restrictions on a woman's reproductive rights..." I find this sentence rather interesting. Why just a woman's reproductive rights? We have the technology - perhaps we should have a vast sperm bank with specimens from any man who ever wants to have a child/children with the stipulation that each donor must approve the use of his own sperm. After obtaining and cataloging said sperm, sterilize the male. He could then go on to have sex with any partner he wishes without the risk of unwanted pregnancy. This way pregnancies would be planned and the abortion rate would go down. I admit the legislation, space, and organization would be unimaginably tedious,vast, and time consuming. I suppose once a male reaches puberty he would then have to contribute his sample and "have his nuts cut" , but it would prevent unwanted pregnancies while still allowing for the procreation of the species. ( I am, of course saying this facetiously and not taking it seriously in the least, but is it not an interesting point?)
Well, I will now let you all get on with picking this (and each other) apart. Please play nice or they may put everyone in separate playpens! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I disagree that certainty about a certain issue makes one less able to see it from another individual's point of view.
Doubt is not precisely an indication of an open mind.
Certainty is not necessarily the determing trait of a jerk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I think that there is a difference between being certain about a decision and refusing to acknowledge that a situation is complex. As a matter of fact, I would more thoroughly trust a decision of my own after I had tried to weigh the nuances and seen the shades of grey. For me, a decision based on refusing to acknowledge doubt would be fragile.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
All right.
JenniK:
Why do you think it's important to teach that sex is natural?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
JenniK,
quote:If a person is over 21 and has been drinking, I can tell them that they shouldn't continue to drink if I believe them to be drunk already yet, they will continue to do what they want as I am neither their mother nor their keeper. I can't keep them from getting behind the wheel of a car if it is their car. I can try and I can even call the police, but I myself may not be able to stop them if it is their choice. (especially depending on their size)
Well, first of all this example does not appear to be very relevant, given that you believe a fetus is a person. The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else. But, if a fetus=person, then you've got one person killing another. Not the same thing.
As for stopping or not stopping a drunk from getting behind the wheel...well, I feel differently about that. I have actually used physical violence* to stop friends of mine in the past who were drunk from getting behind the wheel, and physically restrained an acquaintance from doing the same until a cab arrived.
quote:There are circumstances that may make abortion seem the lesser of 2 evils to some women.
Of course. Using those rare (although not as rare as we'd like, of course) circumstances to justify terminating a person seems a bit strange, though. Especially since we have ways of applying the laws to be a little less blunt than "abortion illegal for everyone".
quote:Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
I did read all of what you said. The statement, "Sex is natural and good," is, unfortunately-if stated alone as you did-not something everyone is going to be able to get on board with. Even outside of religious considerations, just because something is natural does not make it good. I do, however, understand what you're saying.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the link, JenniK. From the page, "The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years for 2001..."
So even with our hodgepodge of sex ed classes, we came out ok compared to everyone else.
Some info on US abortions:
quote: The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried [82 percent], white [55 percent], and aged <25 years [52 percent]. Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59 percent were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88 percent at <13 weeks.
Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.
Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48 percent of them have had at least one previous abortion.
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
I find the number of repeat customers to be surprising. At that point, why not get your tubes tied and be done with it? I know even that isn't 100%, but it's got to be better than whatever they were doing on their own.
I'm also thinking there's something to those numbers of minority abortions. We made a big deal out of people paying a ton of money to adopt a baby. But how many people want a kid that doesn't look like them? Is there a way to find data that would support or refute inherent prejudice in which women folks are willing to support while waiting to adopt? (I have a hypothesis. If I remember my scientific method, now I need data.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by JenniK: To me (fetus = person: yes) Pro-choice. How does this work in your equation? I am just curious.
It doesn't. It's my syllagism, not yours. You get your own!
Rivka, as far as my "moral compass" is concerned, I'm just saying it is a good idea to have a certian direction in mind when faced with a tough decision. You can use whatever criteria you want to determine what that direction is, but to not do so leaves you with a chaotic jumble of thoughts running through your head, and so you will end up making a decision based on ignorance or confusion.
It is apparent that pro-choicers are either using a different setup that me, or are in the same group as many pro-lifers, in that they believe how they do because that is what they were told (more or less). I could be wrong here, but I think my setup has the benefit of being both clearly defined and based on morality. As far as I can see, the pro-choice argument is missing one, the other, or both, depending on who is doing the arguing. This is not to say that many pro-lifers do not explain their viewpoint any better.
Anyway, where abortion is concerned, I've got my moral compass. Other issues have a different compass, but the magnetic attraction is not nearly as strong. It is for this reason that you may get me to adjust my course on many other issues, but you're gonna need a pretty big magnet to get me to change direction here.
[edit] This is where religion comes in, and why it is in fact so important. Rare is the person so smart that he can create logical constructs that dictate how he should proceed on every issue. Religion provides that. [bias alert] Some (Chritianity) do it better than others (Islam). But the compass I do not have any faith in (pun intended) is the one based in atheism. For it relies on the strength of the inteligence of Man. And if we can't even get it right with God's help, how much better can we fare going it alone?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my opinion:
A "moral compass" can point you in a direction, it isn't a map. Deciding on a position, then ignoring the complexity of an issue is not a good way to make decisions. "Clearly defined" is not necessarily a virtue.
Religion, for me, does not negate my own conscience, "logical constructs", reasoning or moral decision making. God does not ask me to turn in my brain at the door. My religion helps me to form my moral choices; it doesn't replace them or make them for me.
And third, in my experience, people often have made their moral choices and use religion to justify those choices whether there is basis for it or not. Sometimes there is; sometimes there isn't. But I would closely examine my own motivations for deciding what direction my "religious compass" is pointing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Resh...she has an idea why it works for her. I should know, she is my wife.
I think (although I may be wrong) that she was pointing out that that was something that does exist but doesn't seem to fit into your perspective.
I don't know what point a fetus becomes a person....and neither do you, despite all claims to the contrary. You know where you begin to consider it one, and it is based on your religion (or at least for some people it is). Fine.
But I don't believe the same thing as you, and last I checked that was allowed.
What I do know, beyond any doubt, is that the mother IS alive, and is a person. I also know that pregnancy is dangerous, and having a child is at least in part a medical decision.
Last I checked people were allowed to make those types of decisions themselves.
To me, all the rest of it is speculation. And your right to believe what you want ends at my wife's belly, so to speak.
I personally would never consider abortion, and neither would JenniK, because we believe that the POTENTIAL for life is a gift, and should be cherished. A fetus is the greatest gift of all, because of the potential it represents, regardless of any arbitrary line someone else draws.
But I understand that not everyone feels the way I do, and to me this is every bit as important a decision as religion......and people must find their own way. I can help, or guide, but I do not have the power to force anyone into motherhood.
Nor do I feel anyone else should have that power or right.
So I don't fit into your neat little catigories well, nor will I ever. It is great you are SURE you are right.
I am sure I am too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very well put, Kwea.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thanks. I forget that not everyone knows that I have typed that answer at least 15 times just in the past 3 years, so it is easy to get frusterated during these conversations.
Resh is conversing now, and while I doubt we will agree I think this type if discourse is much better than calling each other names and telling people what they REALLY feel and think.
While that statement isn't new to me (or a lot of others who have been talking about this stuff for years here at Hatrack ) it may be to him. I remember when I wa so staunchly pro-life that I would have slapped anyone telling me that I might consider being pro-chioce. Well, not slap, but....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B.
This is simply a (much) more polite form of what Resh has been doing. Is it simply the lack of courtesy he has exhibited drawing everyone's ire? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
So I wonder where the ire is for this statement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Resh's lack of courtesy is actually a large part of my issue with him. However, at least in this thread, it's more the smug certainty that he fully understands and has found wanting everyone else's positions that really bugs me. Despite repeated explanations that his interpretation of other positions is either incomplete, inaccurate, or flat-out wrong.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Here's a fun little abortion story. It makes me giggle.
We went to see a woman in New York who is renown for being able to see the dead (as in spirits). This woman knew a lot of things about us, the most interesting to me was that she knew my friend Sarah had an abortion. Sarah had never told anyone. The woman explained that the baby is plainly still connected to Sarah.
I know a lot of people are skeptical of that kind of thing, seeing the dead and all. It doesn't change the fact that whenever I think of abortions, I picture little spirit fetuses that can't speak or understand the world, tethered to their mothers, blissfully content.
It reminds me of another amusing question: Who says existence is better than non-existence? How would they know?
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
To answer Rakeesh - you again did not read the entire statement that I made. This is what I said in my original post:
quote:Originally posted by JenniK So, if children and teens were taught that sex is natural, (which is pretty self evident considering that we do, as a species, exist - philosophers need not add snide remarks [Smile] ) and were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed...
please note the continuation of the sentence after the parenthesis: and were taught all about it openly and honestly they would be better informed...
also,
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh Well, first of all this example does not appear to be very relevant, given that you believe a fetus is a person. The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else. But, if a fetus=person, then you've got one person killing another. Not the same thing.
in many drunk driving fatalities the driver may kill an entire family, yet walk away unharmed so they may be killing more than one person at a time. One person killing multiple people. Not the same, but possibly more harmful.
and -
quote:As for stopping or not stopping a drunk from getting behind the wheel...well, I feel differently about that. I have actually used physical violence* to stop friends of mine in the past who were drunk from getting behind the wheel, and physically restrained an acquaintance from doing the same until a cab arrived.
This may be fine for you, but for a woman facing a belligerent drunk who outweighs her by almost 100 pounds and doesn't care who he hurts, it may not be so easy to resort to physical violence to stop them from getting behind the wheel of a car, especially if there is no one else there to assist.
To answer ScottR - most teens I know ( and I have been an adult advisor for an organization for girls age 11-21 since 1996, so I know a fair few) that have sex education in school are taught about reproduction, i.e. the functions of the body and childbirth, but not about sex itself. Many school boards forbid teachers to explain about intercourse and all it entails or to answer questions about it. It is seen as taboo or forbidden. Then they wonder why there are so many girls turning up pregnant while still in high school (and sometimes Jr. high), after all they have "sex ed." in health class so they should know the consequences of their actions. So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents about that. Kwea explained better than I could how I/ we feel about the subject. If you read his posts here on page 7, my feelings on the subject of "(fetus = baby: yes) Pro-choice" might make a little more sense. As we believe it to be a very important issue we discussed this before we were even engaged to make sure we were both on the same page. We hope to start our own family and pray to be so blessed every day, but not everyone feels the way we do. That is their right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
JenniK,
quote:To answer Rakeesh - you again did not read the entire statement that I made. This is what I said in my original post:
*sigh* I did, I really did. I'm just pointing out that your inclusion of "natural and good" in an "open and honest" discussion of sex is going to be viewed as incomplete or objectionable to some people.
quote:in many drunk driving fatalities the driver may kill an entire family, yet walk away unharmed so they may be killing more than one person at a time. One person killing multiple people. Not the same, but possibly more harmful.
Duly noted.
quote:The drunken 21 year old could potentially only hurt himself, and no one else.
quote:This may be fine for you, but for a woman facing a belligerent drunk who outweighs her by almost 100 pounds and doesn't care who he hurts, it may not be so easy to resort to physical violence to stop them from getting behind the wheel of a car, especially if there is no one else there to assist.
Agreed. The same is not true, however, for federal and state governments, thus rendering that part of your argument pretty inert. Or rather, it does if the reason you said, "I can't stop a person from getting behind the wheel drunk," was just, "I lack the physical means to compel the person not to."
quote:So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
This is a bit different from what you appeared to be saying before. I have no trouble with sex education being open and honest and, in fact, compulsory for high-school students, so long as it's not coupled to sex being "natural and good".
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think "natural and good" would be better than "dirty and wrong."
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So do I. Better does not mean good, though.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Sex ed really didn't factor into my decision to have sex. That was mostly hormones and being bombarded with the idea that sex was no big deal. You go to the movies and two people who like each other have sex. You watch tv and everyone who likes each other has sex. You read a teen magazine and they're giving out advice on it. Society tells us that teens have sex, so I didn't worry too much about it.
Though in full disclosure, even if society said good girls didn't act like that, I probably would have anyway. When those hormones kicked in, they kicked in hard.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I can’t help thinking that rationally, logically, most people would go for a procedure to save B.
quote: I wonder where the ire is for this statement.
Dag, there was no ire involved. The simplistic odds I gave were purposefully weighted, in my view, towards this being the logical choice. I’m not saying you‘d be wrong if you were to choose differently - just that you’d probably be driven by other principles than statistical probabilities. The numbers suggested that this was the procedure with the highest chance of success, and I assumed that without other factors intervening, this would be the one most people would choose. If I was arrogant to assume that most people would see this as the most likely option, then - sorry.
I just wanted to know where Resh’s pro-life and anti-playing God limits were.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: To answer ScottR - most teens I know ( and I have been an adult advisor for an organization for girls age 11-21 since 1996, so I know a fair few) that have sex education in school are taught about reproduction, i.e. the functions of the body and childbirth, but not about sex itself. Many school boards forbid teachers to explain about intercourse and all it entails or to answer questions about it. It is seen as taboo or forbidden. Then they wonder why there are so many girls turning up pregnant while still in high school (and sometimes Jr. high), after all they have "sex ed." in health class so they should know the consequences of their actions. So if they were taught all about it openly and honestly, they would be better informed and perhaps decide they are not ready to handle being sexually active.
JenniK:
This doesn't explain why you iterated that sex should be taught as something 'natural.'
Hate to hang on that point. I agree that in sex education classes are important in reducing teen pregnancy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:just that you’d probably be driven by other principles than statistical probabilities. The numbers suggested that this was the procedure with the highest chance of success, and I assumed that without other factors intervening, this would be the one most people would choose.
I think it's the equation of "rationally, logically" (from the first post) with being driven by the principle of "statistical probabilities" that I find most troubling.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
Rakeesh, I think you are taking one of my statements and placing it into another.
quote: Originally posted by Rakeesh I did read all of what you said. The statement, "Sex is natural and good," is, unfortunately-if stated alone as you did-not something everyone is going to be able to get on board with. and
I'm just pointing out that your inclusion of "natural and good" in an "open and honest" discussion of sex is going to be viewed as incomplete or objectionable to some people. and
I did not say anything about sex being "natural and good" in an open and honest discussion about sex. Scott R is the person who put those terms together saying
quote: Also, "natural" doesn't always translate to "good for humanity."
I responded to that statement and yours (which I quoted above), by saying:
quote: Please read all of what I said before saying things like "not all things that are natural are good for humanity". In this case specifically that thought would be severely detrimental to humanity. What I mean by that statement is that sex is both natural and good for humanity - without it the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.
To paraphrase my statement: obviously sex is natural and good for humanity because the human race exists. Without it (previous to technological advances such as in-vitro fertilization)the human race would have died out long ago - which I tend to see as being a bad thing for humanity. I said nothing about teaching that sex is natural and good. So your saying that I stated that , and that I stated it alone was incorrect. If you did read all of what I said, then you should have seen it in the context in which it was written.
quote: Originally posted by Scott R JenniK:
Why do you think it's important to teach that sex is natural?
If you are going to teach about sex, and teach all about it openly and honestly, you should teach that it is natural , as it is something that comes as a natural function to the human species. I don't mean to say that you should teach teenagers that "it is natural to have sex, therefore go ahead". I mean to teach them that it is natural and being fully informed about all that sex entails ( physical and emotional consequences included) may help them to make better informed decisions regarding sexual activity. They may decide not to act on impulse simply because their hormones seem to drive them to it, and instead think about what the outcome of their actions may be.
I hope that I explained that better so that you can understand. Sometimes I know what I want to say, but have trouble putting it into words that other people will understand . Kwea calls it my tendency to use "Jenni Speak" , but sometimes I can actually get my meaning across. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Aha!
Thanks for the explication. I think that you're mostly correct.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Kwea said: I don't know what point a fetus becomes a person....and neither do you, despite all claims to the contrary. You know where you begin to consider it one, and it is based on your religion (or at least for some people it is). Fine.
I don't think I've ever stated where I think life begins. Neither have I said what I think defines personhood (the two are not necessarily the same thing). All I've ever said is that since there is no way of knowing what that point is, I find myself without any choice but to be pro-life.
The part where everyone seems to get upset with me is my insistence that the way I've come to this conclusion is both morally and logically superior to others. I guess that's impolite. The thing that keeps getting repeated (not just here, by the way) is that I must be ignoring something or not understanding something, and statements like "she was pointing out that that was something that does exist but doesn't seem to fit into your perspective" are indicitive of that.
Here I go attributing motivations again, but I believe that when one is completely convinced of his arguments but someone refuses to acquiesce to one's viewpoint, one figures that it is the fault of the resister. Now I am perfectly aware that I may be describing myself. But since I find that I do understand what is being said, and that I am able to process these things within the framework with which I am working, and, as I said before, my convictions are barely shaken, I can provisionally conclude that I am not the one who is being dense. However, because I keep getting responses that seem to stem from an incomplete comprehension of what I say, and because the essence of the difference between the two viewpoints means that either one or the other of us is flat wrong, (and there is no in-between; to believe so just betrays one's incomprehension of the debate, at least the one I'm engaged in), I must also provisionally conclude that those I am debating with are more likely to be speaking without performing much introspective analysis.
In other words, you are not letting me challenge you. You are trying to rebuke me with arguments that worked for you in the past and still work for you, regardless of whether they actually apply. For instance: "You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way, but I disagree and your opinion has no dominion over a woman's choice. And why are you such a jerk? (not a real quote)" The point is being missed here.
Some of you recognize the situation and have tried to formulate appropriate responses. Kudos. But they are generally failures, if you ask me. And since my purpose here (on this thread; don't take my statements here to be universally applied to everything I ever say) is to prove myself right in my own eyes, while applying my own very strict standards of qualification, making friends and converts is not my main concern. I'm judging the merits of the arguments. I am the arbiter of what works and doesn't work for me.
As a nice enough person (it's true! You should meet me in person!), I do actually care about what people think of me. But that's the beauty of internet forums (and this one in particular). I can do away with niceties and really get my hands dirty. I understand that that is not what many are here for. Most of them just stay out of it, and who can blame them? But in the future, I will try to be more persuasive and less abrasive.
P.S. I pass my own test, and I set the requirements for passing very high for myself, because the result of passing the test means that I can hold on to my belief that a woman does not deserve the right to decide that she can have an abortion. This should not be a belief that is arrived at lightly. I mean, I could just say "pro-life" because God commanded it. This is good enough for most, and I'm sure it's good enough for God. But I'm not using that reason. And since I'm not, I'd better be damn sure I'm right. And now I am.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But in the future, I will try to be more persuasive and less abrasive.
Hey! I just popped into the last post on the last page of this thread without even reading the opening post, much less anything else, and the first sentence I read was that one. I like it! Good sentence.
Edit: And hey! I got the ToPP (Top of Page Post for those unaware of my shorthand). And I wasn't even trying! Woo! Its all downpage from here. Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
But you are doing the very thing you claim to hate in that very post.....you are assuming there is no middle ground, when to a lot of people there IS, and then claiming someone HAS to be dense not to get your points.
You claim to only care about being the arbitrator of "what works" for you, but then you deny others the same right to decide for themselves.
"You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way, but I disagree and your opinion has no dominion over a woman's choice."
But that isn't contrary to the argument....it is the central tenant of my belief....that I don't think that your beliefs, religious or otherwise, have enough weight to overrule the mothers choice on what happens to her own body.
I refuse to allow you the right to restrict what this discussion is about, because it affect more than just the fetus.
You feel the future rights of something that may or may not be born even if left alone outweighs the rights of a woman who is already been born and is living her life as she sees fit.
I don't.
By ignoring the nuances of other peoples perceptions and writing them off as dense because they don't agree with you, you are missing the entire point.
If it was as simple and uncomplicated as you have said you feel it is then there wouldn't really be a debate.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Amen, JenniK. Excellently put.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
(((Kwea posting as JenniK....again)))
That was me. Again.
I really wish JenniK would learn to log off. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
MUCH better! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've been trying to find ways to categorize the debate that flourishes from different subjects. So far, abortion debates most resemble the patterns found also in debates between vegetarians and meat-eaters.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Really? I've never been in one of those debates. I guess I'd have to formulate an opinion before I did.
Kwea, I understand there are a lot of gray areas as far as the philosophy of the debate is concerned. What makes it so confusing is that my philosophy interferes with how those gray ares are defined. It is very complicated, on many levels. I define for myself the issue in very stark terms, for my own reasons (which I expressed in that last post). I respect that you and most others do not. You all have your own reasons. I think that in order to tolerate gray areas, one must have less defined logical parameters. No problem. Don't think that when I arbitrate "what works" for me, I think that they must work for everyone else. You believe what you want and how you want.
BUT...I think that in order for you to believe differently from me, you have to define your own reasons, and if you are perfectly honest with yourself you will see that you don't have anything that really works. I only say that because I've thought long and hard about it, and I've argued my position against many pro-choicers, and no one has a better response than what has been presented here. I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
[edit] I have determined those responses to be woefully inadequate, but of course, you don't have to accept that. But what you should do is have a reason for rejecting it, and it should be better than "well, I disagree." Which is only slightly better than the most common retort I hear, which is "you're an idiot."
[also edit] Not that you should do it now. We've gone over this long enough, and I don't think anybody is about to bring anything new to the table. If you wan't to convince me that I'm mistaken, you can try again later. If your arguments are good enough to convince other's and you don't care about convincing me, then we can just drop it entirely.
Posted by Threadender (Member # 9728) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Don't think that when I arbitrate "what works" for me, I think that they must work for everyone else. You believe what you want and how you want.
...I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
So using arbitrary and personal criteria that you admit are at least problematic, you arrive at a moral determination which only applies to other people?
By extention, however YOU determine an issue is how we should behave, unless we are able to convince YOU otherwise.
I'm sure you have already decided who I should vote for...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: BUT...I think that in order for you to believe differently from me, you have to define your own reasons, and if you are perfectly honest with yourself you will see that you don't have anything that really works. I only say that because I've thought long and hard about it, and I've argued my position against many pro-choicers, and no one has a better response than what has been presented here. I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
I have have determined that you are not worth the effort that I have already expended trying to explain that what works for me doesn't make me amoral. You saying otherwise means completely nothing to me.
I will tell you that I find it completely obnoxious to declare yourself the moral (or intellectual)superior to everyone who disagrees with you in this thread.
Your much vaunted "logic" is no more than the simple posturing of a person who can't comprehend that others have a right to their own views on things, and that those views are not necessarily inferior to your own.
You obviously feel yourself qualified to determine what other people should be allowed to do with their lives. I am just glad that you lack the ability to enforce your views.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Really? I've never been in one of those debates.
It's an eerie parallel, straight down to the frequency at which people are compared to nazis.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
50 Hz?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
So Kwea, I don't have a problem telling you what I think, and neither do you. Whether I am right or wrong, I am able to tell you precisely why I think your position is amoral and illogical. Compare...
You tell me I'm obnoxious, not worth the effort, and unable to comprehend that other people have the right to make their own decisions. From what I gather, you feel this way because 1) you disagree with me and 2) I have the nerve to be so unabashadly frank and precise in explaining how and why I feel a certain way.
If my "logic" is jus a bunch of posturing, then how come you don't try and deconstruct it? You can call it what you want, but you haven't made the slightest bit of progress toward proving me wrong. You're just yelling at me about how I'm a big jerk, and an idiot (not in so many words).
You're obviously very frustrated. Me? I'm probably acting smug.
Threadender, my moral determination applies to everyone, if it is correct. Because if it is, then abotion is wrong, and of course everyone should act accordingly. Why is this a problem? If you are pro-choice, you make the claim that I should not be trying to make decisions that rightfully a woman's to make.
As for having to convince me otherwise, only if you feel like trying. I don't make any demands. I don't see why this is so hard for people to realize. I am pro-life, and I am able to explain why, in no uncertain terms. Part (or all) of the reason I am pro-life is because my reasoning requires me to assign values of right and wrong. If I only applied those standards of right and wrong to myself, then I would have to be pro-choice.
That is the *il*logical basis of the pro-choice argument, that notions of right and wrong only applies to the person who has the notion. Except the notion of the wrongness of applying the the notion of the wrongness of killing an unborn baby. That notion (the first one) must apply to everyone. Does that make sense? Because it is certainly a double standard.
Hmm, I know what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like gibberish. If anyone can paraphrase the above paragraph for me, I'd appreciate it!
[edit] Made a sentence bold, because it's important.
Posted by Dikaiosune Esti Kalos Algos (Member # 10390) on :
Totally unrelated to the rest of the posts (or at least I assume this is... I didn't actually read every single post in this thread, only about the first half of them) But... Wouldn't abortion send the baby/unbornchild/fetus/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it straight to Heaven? Since they haven't been born, it seems to me that it would be impossible for them to have committed any sins. Or does the fact that they were unbaptized condemn them to Hell?
...That is no longer entirely representative of my views (And I freely admit to being agnostic and therefore not really believing in Heaven/Hell, or having a problem with abortion... But the whole sending-straight-to-heaven thing is a bit extreme even for me)
But it has still bothered me for quite a long time. So is it that the abortion wouldn't send the soul to Heaven, or that people have a problem with sending the soul straight to Heaven? (ie, even though life on earth may be imperfect, it is really needed to appreciate Heaven... I could totally go with that argument, you can't appreciate the good things without experiencing things that aren't good...)
So I guess I just answered my own question.
I'm still posting this anyways.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm not sure how it works in the faiths where you have to get baptised. My non-denominational view would be that aborted babies go right to Heaven. I just don't see how that justifies ending 25% of all pregnancies voluntarily.
I probably wouldn't mind abortion so much if it was something a few hundred women did every year. It would make me a little sad, but I'd shrug, say Whatchagonna do, and never think of it again. For me, it's the sheer scope of things that gets to me.
What are these women doing that 3 million are getting knocked up when they didn't mean to and half of those abort? It's the wantonness that angers me. (That and anything in the second trimester or later is vile to hear described.)
I don't know who these Guttmacher folks are, but they seem purely clinical with a pro-contreceptive angle. They're claiming the number of abortions is tied directly to the number of unintended pregnancies. Decrease the unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of abortions.
What they don't explain is what we do different from Western Europe that they have very low abortion rates and ours are among the highest in the developed world. We have groups that give pills and condoms out free or cheap. What more should we be doing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I find your attitude, particularly in this thread, to be obnoxious and smug. I also find your logic to be faulty, and feel your opinion to be narrow-minded and feel it fails to consider all of the related points that matter to me.
I wasn't yelling this time, or calling you names, nor was I saying anything that others haven't.
I DO understand why you believe what you do, Resh. I am not even saying that you are completely wrong. I don't consider abortion to be a viable option in my life because I agree with at least some of your logic.
But the disconnect happens whenever you try to mandate how others must life their lives, and when you take control of other peoples medical treatment. I feel this is as evil, and just as problematic, as anything abortion does.
I understand that you don't agree, but I don't call you amoral or thick, or slow. I understand that there is a gray area, where there are two poor choices rather than one good and one evil. I chose the pro-life stance because, regardless of my own personal feelings, I think that personal freedom regarding your own life, and your own medical treatments, trump all of your arguments.
But I also understand that even personal freedom isn't limitless, so even that isn't black and white, as nice as that would be.
YOU are the one acting like a child, calling others amoral and even evil, and even comparing them to Nazi's, all because they don't agree with you. Your simplistic views refuse to even consider the fact that it is possible to disagree with your opinions without being either of those things.
I don't' need to dissect your logic...I just don't find it compelling enough to remove personal freedom from the mother. I think that out of two very poor options, I choose the one that doesn't violate the rights of a living, breathing human being, the only one granted rights by our laws and our Constitution....the mother.
Posted by Dikaiosune Esti Kalos Algos (Member # 10390) on :
I'm fairly sure that birth control in Western Europe is cheaper than here. Recently in an entirely different discussion that I was having on an entirely different website... It came out that the women from Britain were astonished to find out that people had to pay for birth control pills here. I guess that they are more or less covered by the national health insurance in Britain.
...And I guess people would argue that abstinence only education is counterproductive. I personally believe that education about safe-sex is better than abstinence only education... Not just in the sense of preventing abortions, but also just in the sense of giving people knowledge. I don't have any statistics to say whether or not safe-sex education reduces abortions, but I think that I've seen some before. Then again, with a topic as controversial as Abortion, you can generally find statistics to support just about anything.
What do you think of the morning-after pill? Do you consider it abortion or not?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Resh...
quote: That is the *il*logical basis of the pro-choice argument, that notions of right and wrong only applies to the person who has the notion. Except the notion of the wrongness of applying the the notion of the wrongness of killing an unborn baby. That notion (the first one) must apply to everyone. Does that make sense? Because it is certainly a double standard.
So, if I get this right you're saying that if you know something is wrong then you should expect others to behave accordingly to the knowledge that it is wrong.
And I can agree, kind of. I'd say that if WE know something is wrong then WE should expect others to behave accordingly.
Which is why I think we can all agree on things like murder, assault etc.
BUT what I think you're missing is that there are many issues for which there is no right/wrong consensus, in which case we might be wronging someone else by forcing our morality on them. For example there are those on this board who *know* that eating meat and dairy together is wrong, but I don't expect them to project that belief onto me since there is no broad consensus that it is.
quote:I don't think I've ever stated where I think life begins. Neither have I said what I think defines personhood (the two are not necessarily the same thing). All I've ever said is that since there is no way of knowing what that point is, I find myself without any choice but to be pro-life.
The part where everyone seems to get upset with me is my insistence that the way I've come to this conclusion is both morally and logically superior to others. I guess that's impolite.
It's not just impolite it's flat wrong. You can't go around claiming that your conclusion is logically superior when you haven't looked at all the facts. In proper decision analysis the certain equivalent of a deal or decision is determined by the probability of the different outcomes as well as their value. (Where probability is the decision makers degree of belief that the outcome will occur). Your entire "analysis" ignores the fact that the probability and value of the outcomes is relative, as it is for all decisions.
Now, that's not so say you couldn't use decision analysis to logically prove your point - you could. BUT you'd need to look at all aspects of the decision and see how sensitive the solution is to "reasonable" changes in the probabilities and values to make sure it's robust enough to be considered universal... We can dither more about what constitutes "reasonable" changes but take it as meaning a swing which covers the beliefs/values of a suitable percentage of the population - say 95% or such).
Employing this method you'll be able to conclude that murder, assault, rape etc are all wrong. But you *won't* be able to do the same for abortion.
So, the bottom line is that your conclusion works for you but it's arrogant, as well as logically insincere, to claim it works for anyone/everyone else.
-me
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
From Wiki:
Irving Copi writes that:
The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)
To support this, one might add a third case, the argument that something is false or true because the speaker cannot (or finds it hard to) conceive otherwise. This argument by lack of imagination is sometimes expressed in the form "Y is absurd (because I can not imagine it), therefore it must be untrue," or "It is hard to see how..." [ie I personally cannot see, or lack imagination, how], and is sometimes confused with the logically valid method of argument, reductio ad absurdum. A logical argument using reductio ad absurdum would be framed as "X logically leads to a provably impossible (absurd) conclusion, therefore it must be false." In reductio ad absurdum, it is necessary to show that accepting X implies a contradiction (such as "not X", or "Y and not Y" for some other proposition Y). In an argument from ignorance, the speaker asserts "X implies not Y", where Y is believed to be, but cannot be proven, true, rather than something which is provably contradictory.
Copi's argument concerns the Y condition; That in this case of "X implies not Y" for some other proposition Y, some weight must be given to the probability that the speaker's evaluation of Y is correct. For example, if proposition X is "This man was shot", and proposition Y is "There was no bullet", the speaker's qualification to assert condition Y must be considered. A coroner who had examined the body is most likely qualified to draw this conclusion, but an eyewitness is probably unqualified.
Argument from personal incredulity is very similar, e.g. "I am unable to believe/understand X, therefore it must be false."
quote:For example there are those on this board who *know* that eating meat and dairy together is wrong, but I don't expect them to project that belief onto me since there is no broad consensus that it is.
Bad analogy. No one here, including those of us who keep kosher, thinks there's anything wrong with YOU eating milk and meat together (assuming you are not Jewish).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Employing this method you'll be able to conclude that murder, assault, rape etc are all wrong. But you *won't* be able to do the same for abortion.
The same could be said about slavery in 1860, yet it was wrong for Americans to keep slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment was still a proper use of government coercion to make them stop.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Bad analogy. No one here, including those of us who keep kosher, thinks there's anything wrong with YOU eating milk and meat together (assuming you are not Jewish).
Yeah, I guess it might have been a bad analogy...
The point I was trying to make (apparently without success) is that you know there's something wrong with it for you and any of those who share your beliefs (ie Jews) but there isn't a general consensus that your beliefs are right so it doesn't extend to everyone. Similarly Resh knows abortion is wrong for him, and by extension can claim that applies to those who believes what he does but there isn't any consensus that his beliefs are the right ones so he can't/shouldn't extend it farther than that.
So, I guess what I'm saying is I chose this example knowing that you didn't extend it beyond those who are Jewish but trying to make the point that you make - that you don't extend your belief about kosher laws to those who don't share your beliefs in general...
(PS - hope you weren't offended...)
quote:The same could be said about slavery in 1860, yet it was wrong for Americans to keep slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment was still a proper use of government coercion to make them stop.
Actually I'm not 100% convinced this it true (that the same could be said, I do 100% agree that slavery had to go)... the swing in beliefs would be very broad but the disparity in outcomes can make up for that.
On the other hand I won't say I'm 100% convinced that it isn't true either... because I have knowledge that someone in 1860 wouldn't so I can't tell where an analysis based on the knowledge of the day would lead.
What I'm about to try to articulate is tricky and will probably not be clear so I apologize in advance if it comes across badly... It does seem to me that we can better/more easily quantify the long-term impact (and thus the "value" of different outcomes) of abortion than of slavery, if for no other reason than there are things (contraception) that create a similar situation. Since the outcome is the lack of a new influence and not and ongoing event it may be easier to quantify.
But it's important to note that just because something is the logical choice in a decision analysis doesn't say it will have a positive outcome and vice-versa.
Besides, I never made any statements/judgements about morality, simply that Resh is claiming superior logic without actually applying logic.
-me
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't know how you can say I'm not applying logic. You may think my logic is weak, but that doesn't mean it is. You have to show that it is in order to back up a statement like that.
[edit] Talking about outcomes is not gonna do it. You are arguing that the means justify the ends. No matter the utopian society that results, that doesn't excuse killing millions of innocent people.
Kwea, I know you weren't yelling. I was just saying it. I do that sometimes, if you've noticed.
Saying that I'm mandating how people should live, or as Just_me says, there isn't a general consensus in opinion and so I shouldn't extend my beliefs of right an wrong beyond those who are are pro-life, these are distortions of my point. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. You may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make it any less wrong. I think it is wrong enough that it should be outlawed, regardless of how many people want it to remain legal. But this is a separate issue. The constitutionality of the "right" to have an abortion is not what I'm talking about. Even if the founding fathers specifically said "Women may abort their children for any reason," I would still argue that it is a horrible sin. So don't change the subject.
Besides, I'm not even saying that I think it is certainly wrong. The crux of my argument is that there is no way to know that it is not wrong, and therefore the only moral option is to be against it. Bringing up how I compared abortion to the holocaust is changing the subject as well, because although I did do that on this very thread, that was pretty much a different argument that I was making.
Thanks for posting the stuff about the argument from ignorance fallacy, orlax. It puts my argument in an interesting light that I had not considered.
I think it perhaps applies, but if anything, my argument uses the fallacy to make its point. It is because the propositions cannot be proven or disproven that one must choose the pro-life side. In a situation like this, there is no excuse to err on the side of caution.
Which makes me think of something. I've read several times now on this thread that it is better to err on the side of the woman's right to choose, because she is the only one we can be certain is a human life, and so it would be wrong to infringe upon her "constitutionally protected rights." (Sorry, the quotations are not necessary; I just can't help but express my disdain for such a ridiculous idea. A topic for another thread.) So we are both choosing to err on the side of caution. But my caution is for the possible life of an innocent human child. The other caution is for the woman's freedom from being stuck with a kid she doesn't want (for whatever reason, even the good ones.) This is not anything new. I said it many many posts ago: one of us is wrong, and it is certainly better to be guilty of my wrong than to be guilty of the other wrong. I guess I'm like someone who belives in God just in case he's real. Because he doesn't want to suffer the consequences of being wrong. Not a good reason for believing in God, and maybe my reason for being pro-life is no better. But if I were pro-choice, I would hate to find out the hard way that I was wrong.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:ing about outcomes is not gonna do it. You are arguing that the means justify the ends. No matter the utopian society that results, that doesn't excuse killing millions of innocent people.
I am absolutely *NOT* talking about the ends justifying the means. I am talking about a logical approach to decision analysis in which the possible outcomes are identified, given a weight (value) and a probability and this information is used to identify the "best" decision.
I'm not going to to argue about whether your option is the "only moral option". I will, however, make the argument that you haven't presented your argument as a logical one, but as a moral one so you shouldn't claim your logic is irrefutable.
You keep saying you don't have any way of knowing it's not wrong... and you've said before that that means that you therefore logically have only one option.
This isn't true if your degree of belief that it is wrong and the value you place on it not being wrong are such that overall it's "worth the chance". Ot that the value you place on possibly wronging someone if it is OK and you forbid it outweighs the value you place on not forbidding it and it being wrong.
This is what I think people were getting at earlier with the talk of this not being a black and white issue.
This probably makes no sense since I need to sleep... maybe I'll try to clarify more tomorrow (but not likely since I'm swamped and shouldn't even have taken the time to post as much as I did)
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
DEKA, I'm ok with the morning after pill. I've seen those stats on fertilized eggs being flushed from the system naturally, so I usually go with implantation as my when life starts point. To me, the morning after pill is just fixing a mistake.
And while it makes me a little squicky, if women are going to abort, I'd rather they do it early. It's less gross to me before you can feel the baby moving. I know it's something of a rationalization, but I'm ok with that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It made pretty good sense, Jm. I guess I agree, actually. Two things though... just because my logical propositions require moarl judgments doesn't make them illogical. I claim it is irrefutable (while perfectly prepared to be proven wrong if someone can do it) as a moral argument. And that is exactly what abortion requires; some moral judgments.
And second, it's true about degrees of belief, but at what point do you determine that one degree outweighs the other? Surely you place more weight on the degrees of possibility of personhood over the woman's rights. I mean to say, a 25% possibility of personhood would be enough to determine that abortion is wrong, right? What about 10%? 5%? 1%? Where do you draw the line, and how do you determine where the line is? I don't trust human judgment enough to accurately guage this, and so.... pro-life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to sovereignty over his own body.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
kmboots,
I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Resh,
OK.. I got a minute... looks like I lucked out and checked back right after you posted.
First, thanks for actually trying to understand... I appreciate it.
I agree that moral judgements enter into it - to me they enter into the value placed on the possible outcomes.
About where to draw the line...
If I was to approach this using decision analysis techniques I would use this basic approach: 1) identify the outcomes 2) assign value to the outcome 3) assign probabilities to options 4) Multiply the value of the outcome back through the probabilities in the path that leads to it to find the "value" of that option.
As a simplistic example, let's say I'm examining the decision of prohibiting abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
1) identify the outcomes... there are 4:
Allow abortion, is person
Forbid abortion, is person
Allow abortion, is not person
Forbid abortion, is not person
2) I use my morality to assign "values" to the outcome. This gets a little hairy but here's some numbers based on the basic morality that it is bad to take life, good to save life and neutral to take or save non-life (normalized on a scale of 0-100)
Allow abortion, is person = 0 (bad)
Forbid abortion, is person = 100 (good)
Allow abortion, is not person = 70 (little better than neutral since I feel could be harming others if I forbid it)
Forbid abortion, is not person =30 (little worse than neutral for similar reasoning)
3) Let's assume the probability of person-hood is 25%...
Using the notation p(event) is the probability of the event and v(event) is the value of the event, the the relative weight of forbidding is: =p(person)*v(forbid - person) + (1-p(person))*v(forbid - not person)
Which in this case in 47.5. Similarly the value of allowing is 52.5. So, if I have accurately and subjectively defined my values and probabilities I can see that overall I place more value on allowing abortion.
Of course lots of things can change this... as soon as I raise my probability of person-hood above about 28.5% it swings the other way.
So, the bottom line is that each person has to assign their own values and probabilities and make the decision themselves. Their decision may not be moral according to your or my morality but still may be logical given their own morality.
BTW - for what it's worth I don't have my own views on abortion even rally figured out yet. I'm loathe to forbid it outright but think it makes sense to after a certain point... To me life doesn't suddenly begin with the fertilized egg but I don't know when it really does begin. I do know, however, that I felt no moral qualms about offering a friend a ride to the clinic after her father raped and impregnated her...
OK, back to work now....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to sovereignty over his own body.
One could argue that restricting abortion does not, ultimately, limit the sovereignty a person has over their own body.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: kmboots,
I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Am I just imagining that this sounds a bit hostile? I didn't indicate what value I placed on a "person's"* right not to be killed. So how would you know what value I place on it? My point was that in Reshpeckbiggle's posts, he seems to think that the woman's rights are of no value or of negliable value. They don't figure into his construction at all.
* The personhood of a fetus has not been established.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to sovereignty over his own body.
One could argue that restricting abortion does not, ultimately, limit the sovereignty a person has over their own body.
How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point was that in Reshpeckbiggle's posts, he seems to think that the woman's rights are of no value or of negliable value. They don't figure into his construction at all.
And Resh didn't indicate what value he placed on a person's right to sovereignty over his body. That's my point.
You only know that he doesn't consider it to be greater than 1/100th (or 1/1000th, etc.) of the value of a person's* right to not be killed by another human being, assuming this is being weighted based on the probability he listed.
That might be because he doesn't value a person's right to sovereignty over his body. It might also be because of how much he values a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
Therein lies the problem. For example, let's say I decide to start crossing a busy street. There's cars coming and such, but I find a good opening and go for it.
In the middle of the street, I decide I don't want to cross the street anymore, and have a seat on the ashphalt (ouch! Hot!). Are the cars bearing down on me forcing me to move on to the other side?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
"Not being allowed to another" is very different from "being force to grow another."
There are very few instances where a person does not have complete and total control over whether there is another growing inside her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I've read several times now on this thread that it is better to err on the side of the woman's right to choose, because she is the only one we can be certain is a human life, and so it would be wrong to infringe upon her "constitutionally protected rights." (Sorry, the quotations are not necessary; I just can't help but express my disdain for such a ridiculous idea. A topic for another thread.)
Statements like this were my indication that a woman's rights were not being given sufficient value.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
And statements like this are a pretty good indication that a person's right not to be killed is not being given sufficient value.
And the idea that government can't restrict a right in some way to protect another from imminent threat of death is worthy of disdain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And statements like this are a pretty good indication that a person's right not to be killed is not being given sufficient value.
How so? I don't see that statement as having anything to do with a person's right not to be killed, one way or the other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Is there any point in having this discussion anymore? I can understand that you are passionate about this, but I don't think you are even listening to me anymore.
I haven't said that one right trumps the other. I just said that both rights exist. Saying that it is a significant intrusion is not the same as saying that it isn't worth it. Clearly, for many people, it is more than worth it. For me, it would be worth it.
And I am not that far from your point of view. My only argument is that this is more complicated than "killing babies is bad".
Is it such a bad thing to even be able to see the arguments the other side is making?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure it does, Mr. Squicky. That statement doesn't take into account at all a person's right not to be killed, thus it's not being given sufficient value.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...that statement doesn't say that the right of the fetus not to be killed doesn't outweigh the significant intrusion. The relative weighing is not addressed at all. All it is saying is that it is a significant intrusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure it does, Mr. Squicky. That statement doesn't take into account at all a person's right not to be killed, thus it's not being given sufficient value.
It didn't take that into account, because I was only responding to your comment on how pregancy didn't impact a woman's right's to her body.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
Well, I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or Dagonee, but I actually did listen to what you said. I also understand what you're saying. I was just pointing out what I perceieved as a flaw in your reasoning, which was your choice of the word 'force'. In my opinion, almost no women are forced to become pregnant, no more than I am forced to have to use the facilities after eating or drinking.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not believe abortion should be restricted. If that is correct, then it seems to me that you either: a) don't think the fetus is a person, and thus is not worthy of the protection of the second right you say you recognize, or b) think that whatever level of personhood the fetus has achieved is not sufficient to justify the government compelling anything on its behalf.
Aren't you, in effect, saying that the woman's right to choose does trump the fetus's right to not be killed, if you acknowledge such a right as applying to a fetus at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It didn't take that into account, because I was only responding to your comment on how pregancy didn't impact a woman's right's to her body.
OK, well if the statement was meant entirely with those restrictions, then I agree, it does not necessarily have to do with both rights.
I still object to the terms "intrusion" and "force", though. I do not think they're applicable. If I invite someone over to dinner, he's, y'know, eats dinner with me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay. Is there any point in having this discussion anymore? I can understand that you are passionate about this, but I don't think you are even listening to me anymore.
I'd like to know why you think this. I've responded very directly to what you've said. I have refused to accept the unstated assumptions that underly your post.
quote:I haven't said that one right trumps the other. I just said that both rights exist. Saying that it is a significant intrusion is not the same as saying that it isn't worth it. Clearly, for many people, it is more than worth it.
And saying that actual preventing of killing is more important than the concerns of sovereignty - and even thinking that this is not a close weighing - is not the same as saying it's not a significant intrusion.
Your responses have been making assumptions - such as that Resh doesn't value bodily sovereignty or that Resh doesn't recognize that pregnancy is an intrusion - that are not warranted, because if Resh values life to a large enough degree, Resh does not have to hold the positions you've assumed he does in order to be self-consistent.
quote:Is it such a bad thing to even be able to see the arguments the other side is making?
Another unwarranted assumption, this time about my view. Nothing I've said gives you a basis for thinking that I think it bad to be able to see the arguments the other side is making.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In my opinion, almost no women are forced to become pregnant
boots wasn't talking about women being forced to become pregnant, but rather to continue being pregnant when a medical procedure exists to change this.
People aren't forced to break their leg while skiing. However, if you are denying them the medical procedures to fix their leg, you could say that they are forced to continue with a broken leg.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was speaking to Dagonee (with that post). I am happy to amend my statement to "not being allowed to stop growing" rather than "being forced to grow". It is still significant.
And you are wrong. I do think that there should be some restrictions on abortion. I am not sure what those should be.
And, as I have said, I would not (God willing) get an abortion myself.
I am not advocating abortion; I am just trying to assert that it is not as simple as Reshpeckobiggle is making it out to be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:boots wasn't talking about women being forced to become pregnant, but rather to continue being pregnant when a medical procedure exists to change this.
People aren't forced to break their leg while skiing. However, if you are denying them the medical procedures to fix their leg, you could say that they are forced to continue with a broken leg.
Granted re: skiing on broken legs. But it sort of falls apart on careful examination. First of all, it's far from inevitable or even likely that if you ski, you'll break a leg. There are lots of skiers out there who regularly play at their sport, with no broken limbs. In the comparison, the same cannot be said of sex. Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
It also fails because who is to say that a pregnant woman is 'broken'? A broken leg is, obviously, deficient and in need of repair.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And you are wrong. I do think that there should be some restrictions on abortion. I am not sure what those should be.
OK, then I withdraw my statement (at least, withdraw it from applying to you). My mistake.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
[edit]:Also, removing properly used birth control is kind of a big thing, don't you think? I mean, if we look at skiers who ski recklessly and don't use any protective equipment, I'd imagine that the incidence of broken legs per capita would increase quite a bit.[/edit]
quote:It also fails because who is to say that a pregnant woman is 'broken'?
The woman, I would imagine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
Do you disagree? I think it's pretty obvious that those conditions are what I was getting at, but I'll grant the possibility of misinterpretations.
----------
quote:The woman, I would imagine.
Then perhaps she should not have helped to break herself? And anyway, that's a subjective judgement in a way that a broken leg isn't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
No, it actually won't. The chances are high, but far from inevitable.
quote:Then perhaps she should not have helped to break herself?
And perhaps others shouldn't go skiing, thus leading to them breaking their leg.
---
Have you never been in an abortion thread before? This is pretty darn basic stuff. It's been postulated and refuted more times than I can count.
edit: The difference between these two situations isn't about responsibility for the condition or whether or not it is correctly regarded as a bad thing. It's that you don't think that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion and you do think that the skier should be able to have his broken leg fixed.
I'm okay with that. What I'm taking issue is you trying to present it as something other than it is.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Just a minor quibble, Dagonee:
quote:Another unwarranted assumption, this time about my view. Nothing I've said gives you a basis for thinking that I think it bad to be able to see the arguments the other side is making.
I do believe what they are getting at is not that you think the considering of the alternative arguments is bad, but that you think think the argument itself is not worthy of equal consideration. Then again, to hold strong feelings about something is to often work from the assumption that the opposing argument is less worthy, so take that for what it's worth.
I, for what it is worth, am not going to jump into the fray on this issue any further. I simply thought a clarification outside of the immediate individuals arguing might prove helpful to you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The difference between these two situations isn't about responsibility for the condition or whether or not it is correctly regarded as a bad thing. It's that you don't think that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion.
I'm okay with that. What I'm taking issue is you trying to present it as something other than it is.
No, that's what YOU want to make the issue. Please don't try to pretend that this matter has ever been settled in your so-called "refutations." It hasn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, Mr. Squicky, I've never been in an abortion thread before *rolleyes*
--------------
OK, sure, in the abstract world of probabilities, it's possible that a couple behaving as I defined would not get pregnant. Find me one, though, and we can talk about it. One that behaves that way over a period of months or years, let's say.
quote:And perhaps others shouldn't go skiing, thus leading to them breaking their leg.
Again, falls apart because the chance to become pregnant from sex as I outlined it is much greater than the chance of breaking a leg skiing...and anyway, the skiing doesn't entail a bunch of other considerations the way abortion does.
By repairing a broken leg, you're not killing anyway. Also, it is quite possible to be an excellent skier and, for example, have a crappy skier run into you, causing you to break your leg.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do believe what they are getting at is not that you think the considering of the alternative arguments is bad, but that you think think the argument itself is not worthy of equal consideration.
No, it's not what I'm getting at.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Again, falls apart because the chance to become pregnant from sex as I outlined it is much greater than the chance of breaking a leg skiing
Is it the amount of risk, then, that you are saying is important?
quote:By repairing a broken leg, you're not killing anyway.
What if the leg got infected?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is it the amount of risk, then, that you are saying is important?
I think it's certainly a factor* in determining whether or not the government should prevent or permit, yes.
If the leg gets infected, you're killing hostile microscopic organism that are threatening the life of the host body. While pregnancy can threaten the life of the host body, it won't kill you with nearly the guarantee that an unchecked infection will. Pretty basic stuff, Mr. Squicky.
*when there are other moral considerations involved, such as potentially killing a human being.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think it's certainly a factor* in determining whether or not the government should prevent or permit, yes.
So, would you agree that the situation is necessarily different for people who get pregnant while using proper birth control, where the risk is very small?
Alternatively, are you saying we should deny medical care to people who engage in very risky physical behavior, liek those idiots from Jackass? Where is the risk cut-off line?
quote:If the leg gets infected, you're killing hostile microscopic organism that are threatening the life of the host body. While pregnancy can threaten the life of the host body, it won't kill you with nearly the guarantee that an unchecked infection will. Pretty basic stuff, Mr. Squicky.
Right, but you said that you're not killing anything when repairing a broken leg, which is clearly not necessarily true. I mean, I'm just addressing what you said. I can't address things you don't say with anywhere near the same facility.
In addition, infections are not guaranteed fatal if left untreated. In fact, the large majority of them are not. The human immune system handles most of them. Others do not necessarily have the effect of killing the host. Where is the "threatens the host" cut off line?
edit: Significant additions. Sorry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right, but you said that you're not killing anything when repairing a broken leg, which is clearly not necessarily true. I mean, I'm just addressing what you said. I can't address things you don't say with anywhere near the same facility.
I didn't mention anything about an infection, Mr. Squicky. Now, this could be the result of my own ignorance. I mean, an infection could actually begin the moment a bone is broken. I don't actually know. I'm assuming it doesn't necessarily, though.
quote:In addition, infections are not guaranteed fatal if left untreated. In fact, the large majority of them are not. The human immune system handles most of them. Others do not necessarily have the effect of killing the host.
Granted, you're right. My mistake about that...but still, which would you say is more dangerous to a human being? Unchecked infection resulting from a broken bone, or pregnancy in a first-world situation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I didn't mention anything about an infection, Mr. Squicky.
You said no killing. That is clearly not true.
In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
---
quote:still, which would you say is more dangerous to a human being? Unchecked infection resulting from a broken bone, or pregnancy in a first-world situation?
That depends on the specfics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
Now you're just being obtuse, Mr. Squicky. But I'll reply to it, even though it's a trick question. It's OK to kill those cells in the process of surgery because those cells are there involuntarily. The person with the broken leg didn't ask for those cells to be there, didn't do anything to create them except to keep himself alive and breathing. The same cannot be said for nearly all pregnancies, and you know it. That's why it's a trick question.
Also, find me someone who thinks a muscle cell in a leg is or might become a human being.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Squick,
you know well that there is a huge difference between killing a few cells in a leg and killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity.
It is a difference, to quote Douglas Adams, which keeps the vast majorrity of the population alive from day to day.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag,
I know that you can understand the difference between considering something (a woman's rights to her body) less important than something else (a fetus's {is that how that is made possessive?} right to live)- even significantly less - and not considering it at all, or considering it so insignificant as to say that he "just can't help but express [his] disdain for such a ridiculous idea."
The latter doesn't seem to be taking it seriously enough.
I'm not asking either of you to change your mind. I'm just hoping that Reshpeckobiggle can see that there are other considerations. That might help make the conversation more productive.
If that isn't possible, I don't see the point in the discussion at all.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:
you know well that there is a huge difference between killing a few cells in a leg and killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity.
You have to be kidding. You are seriously claiming that the genetics involved are the controlling factor here? That if I point out that statisically, there's a chance that you might have a genetically unique bacteria in there, you'd argue that we can't think of killing it? By that logic, killing a walking, talking, thinking clone is fine, because it's just a collection of cells with a non-unique genetic identity.
You really think that that argument makes more sense than "humans are worth more than bacteria, because humans are sentient, and bacteria cleraly are not"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know that you can understand the difference between considering something (a woman's rights to her body) less important than something else (a fetus's {is that how that is made possessive?} right to live)- even significantly less - and not considering it at all, or considering it so insignificant as to say that he "just can't help but express [his] disdain for such a ridiculous idea."
I took his post to mean he was expressing disdain for the constitutional jurisprudence which defined the framework of this discussion. I have a very hard time not expressing my disdain for that - a disdain which has only grown as I've learned more about legal reasoning.
quote:The latter doesn't seem to be taking it seriously enough.
Again, his disdain was directly aimed at a construct of constitutional law, one not worthy of respect. This is very different from disdaining the idea of personal bodily sovereignty entirely.
Look, I know there are other considerations. But recognizing that does not preclude one from having analyzed those considerations and come to the well-considered conclusion that the weight of the interests at stake is overwhelmingly on one side.
I can agree that personal bodily sovereignty is very important and STILL think that legal abortion is not a close question on the merits, even as I recognize to some that it is a close question.
Too much of the criticism aimed at Resh is blurring the concepts of "understanding others' views" and "having a firm opinion that an issue is not a morally close one."
******* (not addressing Kate in the remainder of this post *******
By the way, I'd like to see some of the politeness police taking a swipe at some of the prochoice rudeness going on in this thread. Several people who essentially agree with Resh's policy viewpoint on this issue have called him on his rudeness and attempted to demonstrate to him a better way to discuss the issue. Let's see some going the other way, please.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, find me someone who thinks a muscle cell in a leg is or might become a human being.
Someday...evil laugh Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I pass my own test, and I set the requirements for passing very high for myself, because the result of passing the test means that I can hold on to my belief that a woman does not deserve the right to decide that she can have an abortion.
I don't know if Kate may have had this quote, from the bottom of p. 7, in mind when she made her original post, but I think that's a pretty clear indication that Resh's disdain isn't only for the constitutional jurisprudence which defined the framework of this discussion.
Just to be clear, I am not entering the fray here regarding the main topic. I don't honestly know what I think about abortion right now, except that I definitely don't think it should be unrestricted, and that I'm pretty sure I don't think it should be banned outright. I'm somewhere in the middle now, but still pondering. However, I do think, in the specific case of Resh, that the quote above presents a view that troubles me greatly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee, I don't have any problem with your position. Weighing the scales and deciding that they come down overwhelmingly on the side of preserving the life of a potential person is fine. The scale tips that way for me, too (though not so overwhelmingly). I was getting the impression from Reshpeckobiggle that he didn't think there was anything at all on the other side of the scale. I hoped that pointing out that there was might help him to at least see that other people could weigh the scales differently without being any of the things he was calling them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
For the record...Dag has always managed in these abortion debates to maintain his beliefs while understanding the other views presented.
He is one of the few people I would discuss this stuff with face to face, because even though we disagree on the final conclusion, I know he gets that there are other viewpoints. We probably wouldn't change each others mind, be neither of us would be calling the other name at the end of the conversation. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: You have to be kidding. You are seriously claiming that the genetics involved are the controlling factor here?
You are a newb here, so I'll give you just this once and step you through what was said.
Behold your reading comprehension lesson:
Squicky was comparing killing leg muscle cells-- human ones presumably-- to killing an entire fetus. I pointed out that the difference was that killing a few leg cells leaves a functioning, living human individual. Killing a fetus does not... a human fetus is a genetically human individual separate from the mother.
The reason genetics are important here is that they unquestionably identify the fetus as human cells which are not part of the mother's body. With the "more leg cells are being killed" argument, Squicky is obviously angling for an allusion to the "part of the mother's body" line of thought, if not directly about to proceed upon that argument path, and I cut him short on it as he should know better, having been through this debate not a few times here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim-Me, You are very wrong about what I am doing and I find your condescension both unwarranted and unproductive. I would ask that you try to conduct yourself with respect towards the other people in this discussion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Megan:
Actually, I don't think that proves your point, although I agree with you about his opinions.
His motivation for that seems to be that if abortion IS murder (a premise I don't agree with) then NO ONE has that right. It only applies to women because they carry the child.
Of course the way he phrased it was more than a little hostile, but considering the topic that is to be expected.
[ April 03, 2007, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Orignally posted by Jim-Me, You are a newb here, so I'll give you just this once and step you through what was said.
Everyone has to have a first post, and I read what was actually written.
quote: I pointed out that the difference was that killing a few leg cells leaves a functioning, living human individual.
Please. The quote was “killing all the cells with a certain genetic identity”. I refuse to believe that the poster is so ignorant of science as to not know how to use the word ”organism” where appropriate. The poster simply chose not to. I respond to what the poster chosed to write.
quote: The reason genetics are important here is that they unquestionably identify the fetus as human cells which are not part of the mother's body.
A woman carrying her own clone would have a whole lot of fetal cells which on the DNA level would be indistinguishable from her own. So if you are actually going by the argument that DNA unquestionably tells you whether or not its okay to kill those cells (namely, that it’s okay as long as an organism with that DNA still lives), you have to conclude that your unquestionable test says its fine.
Or, you can make the reasonable argument that a clone is a separate organism from the woman bearing here, no matter what their DNA is. But that's not what the post said. It said “genetic identity”.
A woman with a tumor in her uterus has cells which have different DNA in them. Not technically of the same "genetic identity".
You can argue that those tumor cells aren’t independent organisms, and that most importantly, they are endangering the life of a sentient organism. But if “genetic identity” is “unquestionable”, then that precludes those from being factors.
Of course, some lines of tumor cells have actually acquired the ability to grow “wild”. It’s been seen in human HeLa cell lines. So these are technically human organisms. You can tell from their genetics.
And these are just all the weird things I could come up with in 5 minutes of thinking. Surely other people on this board could think of things I missed, or science will discover other oddities of biology.
Are you still convinced that genetics will give you the simple “unquestionable” answers you want?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Now, this gives the average woman about a three day window period every month for pregnancy to occur. From this alone, the odds of getting pregnant from a one-time sexual encounter are about 11%.
quote: Now, it's estimated that pregnancy only occurs (according to medical websites) about 1/4 to 1/2 of the time that sperm and the egg are present together, due to a variety of reasons. This lowers the odds of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter to about 3-5%.
quote: To put these odds in perspective, 85% of all couples who have unprotected sex will become pregnant within the first year.
So while one act of sex might not get you knocked up, making a habit of it probably will.
On the other hand, a [url= http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/issw%2094'/HISTORY%20OF%20PROFESSIONAL%20SKI%20PATROLLING%20IN%20THE%20WESTERN%20UNITED%20STATES.htm]History of the Ski Patrol[/url] puts accidents at a smaller number.
quote: Total number of accidents this season 139 Serious accidents 69 Trivial accidents 70 % of accidents to attendance 1%
If total accidents are 1%, broken legs must be <1%.
quote: During the season there were 162 accidents, 51 of which were fractures, dislocations or other serious wounds. The accident rate was .87% It was felt the greatest number of accidents were caused by being out of control.
Just to put some numbers to the pregnancy vs. broken leg debate. You probably won't break your leg skiing, even if you do it regualarly. You probably will get pregnant if you do it regualarly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
swbarnes2--
Within the context of the discussion, Jim-me's statement is precisely correct.
But you do have to look at the whole context and not get strung out on semantics.
Squicky:
If you WEREN'T about to compare killing a fetus to killing a few leg muscle cells...what were you doing? You didn't respond in any productive way to Jim-me that authoritatively refutes his assumption about the direction of your posts...and honestly, that's where *I* believed you were trying to take the discussion, too.
So, please-- elaborate.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
When a guy addresses his first post ever to me and says "you've got to be kidding" and proceeds to go on a tear about a woman carrying her own clone as if that's something *everyone* should consider first thing in a debate on abortion (presumably because of the high numbers of women who go through the expense and years of research to develop and then impregnate themselves with their own clone and then decide... "nah, I guess I should abort") then yes, I'm going to be condescending. I don't have much patience for obtuse people these days, whether deliberate or not.
Which brings us back to your point... as Scott said, if you weren't trying to draw an equation between the leg cells killed in knee surgery to the fetal cells killed in abortion, then why did you compare the two?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: WikiAnswers gives some odds on getting pregnant.
quote: Now, this gives the average woman about a three day window period every month for pregnancy to occur. From this alone, the odds of getting pregnant from a one-time sexual encounter are about 11%.
quote: Now, it's estimated that pregnancy only occurs (according to medical websites) about 1/4 to 1/2 of the time that sperm and the egg are present together, due to a variety of reasons. This lowers the odds of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter to about 3-5%.
quote: To put these odds in perspective, 85% of all couples who have unprotected sex will become pregnant within the first year.
So while one act of sex might not get you knocked up, making a habit of it probably will.
On the other hand, a History of the Ski Patrol[/url] puts accidents at a smaller number.
quote: Total number of accidents this season 139 Serious accidents 69 Trivial accidents 70 % of accidents to attendance 1%
If total accidents are 1%, broken legs must be <1%.
quote: During the season there were 162 accidents, 51 of which were fractures, dislocations or other serious wounds. The accident rate was .87% It was felt the greatest number of accidents were caused by being out of control.
Just to put some numbers to the pregnancy vs. broken leg debate. You probably won't break your leg skiing, even if you do it regualarly. You probably will get pregnant if you do it regualarly.
That 85% is couples who use no form of birth control.
-pH
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Kwea, upon consideration, I guess you're right. I was reading a motivation into his choice of phrasing that may not be there (though I'm not certain it isn't).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please, pH and AvidReader, use tinyURL!
quote:That 85% is couples who use no form of birth control.
This whole tangent of the conversation has been about unprotected sex.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Please, pH and AvidReader, use tinyURL!
quote:That 85% is couples who use no form of birth control.
This whole tangent of the conversation has been about unprotected sex.
I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex. There was a lot about SEX. There was a lot of talk about broken legs and bacteria. I don't think anyone said anything about not using protection. Also, most people who ski don't just grab their equipment and head right up to the double black diamond Widowmaker slope, either (in other words, most people do have some kind of preparation before skiing).
(I don't think that broken leg/abortion is a good comparison - not because of what I'm posting. Just sayin'.)
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex.
Rakeesh:
quote:Granted re: skiing on broken legs. But it sort of falls apart on careful examination. First of all, it's far from inevitable or even likely that if you ski, you'll break a leg. There are lots of skiers out there who regularly play at their sport, with no broken limbs. In the comparison, the same cannot be said of sex. Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
Squicky:
quote:Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
Rakeesh:
quote:Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
Do you disagree? I think it's pretty obvious that those conditions are what I was getting at, but I'll grant the possibility of misinterpretations.
quote:No, it actually won't. The chances are high, but far from inevitable.
This was the context in which AR gave his post on odds of getting pregnant.
This is, of course, a separate issue from whether the broken leg and abortion comparison is a good one. I don't think it is, and the point which it was brought up to make isn't a good one, either.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Separate from the abortion debate, aren't the arguments regarding sex simply showing clearly why sex ed that explains it fully and encourages birth control is a good thing? Aren't the choices are "don't do it because there are risks" and "there are risks, but if you're going to do it, please protect yourself for your sake and others" regarding sex ed?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is anyone debating the value of sex ed? I must've missed it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's a ludicrous analogy because, first of all, you're throwing out proper use of contraceptives and infertility. You may as well make the skier come down blindfolded, and without poles, as well. I'm sure we can agree that that would greatly increase the amount of skiing injuries, right? Contraceptives are readily available, and they're not a secret. To pretend like they don't exist means you're starting out the analogy in a parallel universe. Infertility isn't exactly a rare occurance anymore, and it's hardly statistically insignificant enough that you can just brush it aside.
I mean people can float off into space, too. Y'know, disregarding gravity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's a ludicrous analogy because it equates a serious, life threatening injury to a normal bodily function.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's a good thing I never made that analogy then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, you drew an analogy between refusal to allow abortion and refusal to allow leg-setting after ski accidents.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, I did (edit: sort of - actually it is less an analogy and more a comparison of the reasoning). I don't really have the time to continue it right now, but I'll address it tonight, most likely.
---
I'm wondering, Dag, why did you omit these statements when you were summing up things people said about sex when you classified it as being all about unprotected sex?
quote:Also, removing properly used birth control is kind of a big thing, don't you think? I mean, if we look at skiers who ski recklessly and don't use any protective equipment, I'd imagine that the incidence of broken legs per capita would increase quite a bit.
quote:So, would you agree that the situation is necessarily different for people who get pregnant while using proper birth control, where the risk is very small?
They seem pretty relevant to the claim that you were making.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You also mentioned this:
quote:In fact, in many instances you are going to be killing many more cells treating a broken leg than you are with certain types of abortions. Why is it okay to kill those cells and not the fetus cells?
...which was what prompted my own confusion when you took offense at Jim-me's statement that
quote:With the "more leg cells are being killed" argument, Squicky is obviously angling for an allusion to the "part of the mother's body" line of thought, if not directly about to proceed upon that argument path, and I cut him short on it as he should know better, having been through this debate not a few times here.
Can you explain how Jim-me and I were wrong to think that you were going in this direction?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm wondering, Dag, why did you omit these statements when you were summing up things people said about sex when you classified it as being all about unprotected sex?
As far as the first quotation goes, that wasn't there when Rakeesh responded. Since my whole post was about state of mind as far as what is being discussed, it's absolutely irrelevant. It didn't affect Rakeesh's immediate reply.
The larger issue, of course, is that they aren't relevant to the point I was making, which was to respond to "I don't recall seeing anything about unprotected sex."
Showing that there were indeed discussions about unprotected sex is absolutely, 100% relevant to whether or not there were any such discussions. There was an ongoing argument about the inevitability of pregnancy from ongoing unprotected sex between fertile partners.
Showing that there other discussions happening as well is not relevant in any way, shape, or form to the point I was making. It was relevant to other points that were being discussed in parallel.
Which is why I said, "This is, of course, a separate issue from whether the broken leg and abortion comparison is a good one."
That would seem pretty relevant to anyone trying to understand the claim I was making.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, my bad. I was overly hasty in my read. Sorry about that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No problem.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Hi Megan. What motivation were you reading into my post? Because I'll be happy to verify whether it was there or not.
quote:Dagonee:Several people who essentially agree with Resh's policy viewpoint on this issue have called him on his rudeness and attempted to demonstrate to him a better way to discuss the issue
I appreciate it Dag. You and Rakeesh are doing a very good job of demonstarting that. It was in another thread that xaposert was saying that I shouldn't have to change my writing style, because no one else does. I thought he made a good point, but then, there is something to be gained for the effort, I'm sure.
Then again, my purpose isn't to make friends or converts (thought those are very nice things.) I justwanted to test my beliefs against the most withering assaults possible. I don't know if that has happened, but I did my best to promote the debate.
kmboots, I'll help you out with your ruminations, because although this can be gathered from the whole of my posts on this thread, it will probably help if I just lay it out: I understand the other factors involved, including a womans sovereignity and the intrusion that an unwanted pregnacy can be. However, for all intents and purposes, these are thins that do not factor into my reasoning. They factor into my sympathy for a woman who has been placed in an impossible situation, but they don't affect my decision to value the life of the unborn as much as I would any other person. That value does not simply outweigh the value of the woman's sovereignity or convenience (a mild term for what it actually can describe, I know). Those values have next to nothing to do with each other.
Also, my disain was in fact directed at the constutionality of the Roe vs Wade decision, and any other arguments made in defense of the legality of unfettered abortion. There is no legal basis whatsoever. But I do not have disdain for the values espoused by pro-choicers as their reasons for being such.
In turn, I do have disdain for pro-choicers infusion of those values with more weight than the value of the personhood (and resultant rights and sovereignity) that a fetus just might possibly possess.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Resh: Specifically, your wording in the post I quoted ("my belief that a woman does not deserve the right to decide that she can have an abortion") suggested to me a motivation that was more anti-woman than pro-fetus. Kwea suggested the alternate interpretation (that NO ONE deserves that right). I find your specific wording in that post to be troubling because in my opinion, IF (and I understand you don't grant this "if") anyone has the right to make that decision, it should most certainly be the woman carrying the fetus. I honestly couldn't figure out why you used the word "deserved;" it seemed very paternalistic to me. If you had phrased it "my belief that no one [or "no woman," even] has the right to decide that to have an abortion," I don't think I would have quibbled with you.
I realize that misogynistic tendencies are sometimes applied unfairly, to pro-life positions. I want to avoid attributing that sentiment to anyone undeservedly. I did find your wording troubling, though, and am interested to hear whether you see what I mean.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Notice I was the one who...well, not defended you there, but clarified an alternative meaning, I guess.
I am listening, Resh, but I don't find your arguments compelling at all.
BtW, most of HAVE changed our posting styles based on interactions here at Hatrack. You are free to refuse to, of course, but Xap really isn't one to talk.
I haven't seen him convince anyone of anything since he started the whole " I know what you MEAN to say" style of argument....about 2 years ago, IIRC.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
What exactly defines the pro-choice, pro-life sides? Cause I am not sure which side I am actually on. I don't believe life begins at conception, so I am good with contraceptives and stem cell research and all that (and pretty strongly in favor of them). I don't have an exact moment where life begins, but I think that first breath is way, way too late. I would happily vote for a law that outlawed abortions after the first trimester, except for medical necessity (if a woman at week 14 found out she had cancer and could abort and do chemo to save her life, my ideal law wouldn't affect that choice). I also think in a perfect world, there would be no abortions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In a perfect world there also would be no rape, no incest, and no one would get pregnant without being able to care for the baby.
This isn't a perfect world by a long shot. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I consider myself mostly pro-life, but I have a lot of exceptions and such. I don't think life begins at conception, I would say life begins once the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb.
I'm okay with exceptions for the life of the mother, and rape, and maybe incest, but generally I'd think that'd fall under some sort of rape. I'm not sure on that last one. I think the focus should be on sex education and contraceptives in the early teen years so teens know what all the risks are and what all their options are. Give them all the information.
I think abortions should be few and far between, and while I generally am against them, I am hesitant to legislate control over a woman's body. I suppose if I had to, I'd outlaw anything after the first trimester, with the exception of the health of the mother. And I'd to see a discussion on the rights of the father over unborn children.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think life begins at conception, I would say life begins once the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb.
About age 18? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL....not even then!
Welcome to the "boomerang generation" folks!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol.
Alright, I'll amend that to a fetus that can survive without the aid of the womb, even if it's on a respirator for a little while.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok, Megan. I don't have any of the motivations you were picking up from the wording of my posts (at least I don't think I do.) I'm not anti-woman, by any means. I'm just more pro-babies than I am pro-women. When I say thet I don't think women deserve to be able to abort their unborn children, it is meant in the same way as they don't deserve to be able to kill their born children. But the word "deserve" is misleading, and a poor choice. I like your phrasing better.
Kwea, thanks, and no prob. We disagree, and that's no big deal. I'm thinking that you're starting to realize that most of the allergic responses that everyone is having toward me are really not that big a deal.
[edit] I hope you find my arguments uncompelling because you dislike my abrasive demeanor, which I should try to subdue. But if you find my arguments objectively uncompelling, then that really makes me think that you don't comprehend what I'm saying. You can disagree with my logic, with some of my presuppositions, but it is most certainly compelling. I know because I'm not an idiot, and I know how and why my logic works for me. Your lack of comprehension (if that's what it is) may be a result of me poorly expressing myself, but I doubt it because others have been debating with me and have expressed pretty clear understanding.
I'm for any restrictions on abortions, no matter how slight. I'm for straight up outlawing it, with the most exceptional exceptions. But I'll take what I can get.
[edit] The last sentence sure looks like a non-sequiter. I'm not on my best game tonight.
[ April 04, 2007, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Once again, this isn't a slam...but I don't judge someone by what other people say. I still see a lot of things in your initial posts that I dislike, but it isn't just because we disagree. YOUR tone has changed as well, even if you don't think so.
You really were telling people (or it really, really seemed like you were) what they should think, and what they really meant.
I don't like those types of arguments, because they are usually a complete waste of time. I don't HAVE a lot of time to spend on Hatrack anymore, and I dislike being patronized.
That being said, I was deliberately insulting to you. I felt you were doing that to me, and others, so I tried to show you how it felt.
I tried to exaggerate, to create the same feelings in you (even if just a little bit of them) that I felt when you belittled me, and people who believe as I do. I understand your beliefs...hell, I use to believe that as well. I don't any more, because of personal experiences I have had in my life that made me question the nature of life, freedom, and love.
So I severely disliked you attitude, and your aggressive posting style, particularly when you claimed that anyone not believing the same as you HAD to REALLY know they were lying to themselves, and rationalizing their actions because they knew they were evil. It pissed me off, and felt like a personal attack, and I wanted you to feel that right back.
I succeeded a little too well, I think. All it did was throw gas on the fire.
This thread is a pretty cool example of how Hatrack can salvage almost any thread, though, even if there is very little new to the abortion debate in it when it is all said and done. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"Please, pH and AvidReader, use tinyURL!"
What's that? I just push the button at the bottom of the page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It stops those large URLs from making the screen scroll sideways. Hatrack's UBB renderer can't handle some URLs. tinyURL can help.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love tinyurl.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks, Dag. The links looked normal on my screen. I didn't even realize there was a problem.
I've got the site bookmarked and will be waiting for a chance to try it out.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Texas did something for KQ better than California??? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
, but sometimes I can actually get my meaning across. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)