Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
Rephrase: My mom has told me lots of crazy things that have made me nervous about authority. That's one that made me scared of the police. I obviously would not call 9-1-1 about this.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't know what to suggest if there's no organization to complain to.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:They don't look *like* dead babies, they *are* dead babies. If you're pro-life, that is.
There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, the pictures are from late term abortions, so that they essentially just look like dead babies.
quote:The problem is not that the protesters are trying to make people aware of the issue, it is that young children (PSI's kids are quite young, we're not talking about teenagers) are being exposed to disturbing pictures of dead babies.
Likewise, for people that believe pictures of aborted fetuses are pictures of murder victims, I would think they would be offended at the killing going on inside the building, not the people trying to make others aware of it.
quote:Understood. But while at 5 she couldn't make a distinction between calling 911 and calling the cops, I bet she can now. That's all I was saying.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
rivka, I think she was saying HER mom told her when she was five, and has had a disinclination ever since.
quote:There we go.
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
Rephrase: My mom has told me lots of crazy things that have made me nervous about authority. That's one that made me scared of the police. I obviously would not call 9-1-1 about this.
quote:If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
quote:If that guy with the white beard were walking around a dirty village talking calmly about saving them while carrying around a dead child, yeah, I'd be offended.
Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
quote:?????
a scared looking fetus
quote:Given that I'm not the person whose post you were responding to, why would you assume the second about him?
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Ah - the second. I see.
A race to the bottom is not a solution.
quote:Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
Given how little respect the protesters have for anyone else's beliefs, what makes you feel their beliefs deserve any respect at all?
quote:Thanks. I was trying to figure out how to say that without being mean.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Given that I'm not the person whose post you were responding to, why would you assume the second about him?
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Ah - the second. I see.
A race to the bottom is not a solution.
code:I'm pretty sure that A >>> B.A = number of starving children in third-world countries / total number of impoverished children in third-world countries
B = number of late-term abortions in the U.S. / total number of abortions in the U.S.
quote:This is likely just a semantic disagreement, but wouldn't you say that a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to work on making abortion illegal" has a different set of beliefs than a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to guilt trip those who make use of abortion facilities with enormous, graphically explicit signs visible to everyone in a thousand foot radius?"
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Those who are willing to betray humanity and moral decency in the name of my cause are my enemies (possibly the most vile kind) just as surely as those who stand against me are.
Never give up the moral high ground.
quote:Somebody broke the tables!
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:This is likely just a semantic disagreement, but wouldn't you say that a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to work on making abortion illegal" has a different set of beliefs than a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to guilt trip those who make use of abortion facilities with enormous, graphically explicit signs visible to everyone in a thousand foot radius?"
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Those who are willing to betray humanity and moral decency in the name of my cause are my enemies (possibly the most vile kind) just as surely as those who stand against me are.
Never give up the moral high ground.
quote:I see what you are saying, thanks for the clarification.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
I see. What I was saying is: I'm disinclined to respect the beliefs of anyone whose beliefs are so inherently disrespectful and undeserving of respect (say that five times fast!). In this case, I have no respect for the beliefs of the protesters mentioned in the OP; I then wanted to clarify that this doesn't mean I have no respect for the beliefs of pro-life individuals, period, y'know?
But we're on the same page, so---yeeeeeeah.
quote:For clarification, I also believe they are dead babies. That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
quote:They don't look *like* dead babies, they *are* dead babies. If you're pro-life, that is.
There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, the pictures are from late term abortions, so that they essentially just look like dead babies.
quote:Very good point.
quote:If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
I want my kids to know about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I'll be showing my 7-year-old pictures of camp survivors immediately after liberation anytime soon.
quote:I'm not sure aesthetics is the biggest concern. Some people are old enough to handle certain concepts. Others aren't. Actually, when my husband was four he saw a documentary on the holocaust, complete with bodies in a mass grave, and he became withdrawn for weeks. It caused psychological damage to him.
But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics.
quote:When I saw the movie Outbreak, at one point the President's advisers were contemplating destroying an entire town to stop the spread of a virus. The chief of staff or some guy spread out pictures of the citizens there, and yelled at everyone to look at them.
That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
quote:He was trying to get the people making decisions to see them as real people.
Those are the citizens of Cedar Creek, go ahead take a look at them - these are not statistics ladies and gentlemen - they're flesh and blood! I want you to burn those images into your memories, because they should haunt you until the day you die!
quote:I'm pretty sure the issue here isn't aesthetics, but rather the disturbing/damaging effect these images can have on children.
But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics.
quote:AESTHETICS?!? This is about not traumatizing children. "Aesthetics" be damned.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:Very good point.
quote:If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
I want my kids to know about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I'll be showing my 7-year-old pictures of camp survivors immediately after liberation anytime soon.
But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics. If 100 blacks were lynched every day in Georgia, and protesters used pictures of the murdered victims to try to make people *aware* that it was even going on, would they be evil, or merely misguided, or actually doing something good?
quote:...by focusing exclusively on the most gruesome subset of "what happens in there," which if I'm not mistaken is an extremely small subset.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there.
quote:In order for those two situations to be anywhere near equivalent, they'd have to be pictures of mangled corpses of the townspeople.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:When I saw the movie Outbreak, at one point the President's advisers were contemplating destroying an entire town to stop the spread of a virus. The chief of staff or some guy spread out pictures of the citizens there, and yelled at everyone to look at them.
That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
quote:He was trying to get the people making decisions to see them as real people.
Those are the citizens of Cedar Creek, go ahead take a look at them - these are not statistics ladies and gentlemen - they're flesh and blood! I want you to burn those images into your memories, because they should haunt you until the day you die!
I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there. I don't see it as disrespectful of human life, necessarily. Of course if the people you say were "parading" around, then it certainly could be done in a horrible and disrespectful way. I just don't see it as necessarily so.
quote:And they would have to be showing the pictures to random passers-by including children.
Originally posted by pH:
In order for those two situations to be anywhere near equivalent, they'd have to be pictures of mangled corpses of the townspeople.
-pH
quote:How far would you have gone? Would you beat somebody unconscious if they weren't willing to bring down the signs?
I tell you what, if I saw them on the side of the road doing that, I would have pulled over to deal with them. It woudl have started with diplomacy and either way it would have ended with those signs coming down.
quote:I wasn't alive when it was going on; did they never show it then? Only in documentaries after civil rights progress was made?
A documentary is far from the same thing as public domain. I've never seen graphic lynching pictures on the nightly news and I suspect I never will.
quote:I completely agree that if at all possible children should be kept from seeing shocking things.
There are plenty of documentaries regarding abortion. This topic is about unavoidable graphic pictures, not something that's extremely voluntary whether you see or not.
quote:And I think that would perhaps be much more effective, actually.
I would have no problem at all with displaying 5-foot images of laughing babies in front of an abortion clinic.
quote:++
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:...by focusing exclusively on the most gruesome subset of "what happens in there," which if I'm not mistaken is an extremely small subset.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there.
quote:I don't think blacks were regarded as having the same value of life back then. That was the problem.
I wasn't alive when it was going on; did they never show it then? Only in documentaries after civil rights progress was made?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:And I think that would perhaps be much more effective, actually.
I would have no problem at all with displaying 5-foot images of laughing babies in front of an abortion clinic.
quote:Definitely.
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:And I think that would perhaps be much more effective, actually.
I would have no problem at all with displaying 5-foot images of laughing babies in front of an abortion clinic.
That's when I found out some of their rules about content. But someone has to complain to them, they do not usually get involved with protests unless they are blocking traffic or seem to be getting violent, in my experience.
quote:Sadly (horribly) lynchings weren't considered shocking by much of the population. Sometimes people even considered them as appropriate family entertainment even bringing picnics.
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:I wasn't alive when it was going on; did they never show it then? Only in documentaries after civil rights progress was made?
A documentary is far from the same thing as public domain. I've never seen graphic lynching pictures on the nightly news and I suspect I never will.
If so, I wonder if more progress wouldn't have been made sooner if it *had* been shown.
quote:That would be the last option, but I will admit I am not above it. Most likely I would talk with them, and then if they refused I would call the cops. If they were still out there the next day I woudl give the cops one more chance. If I had to though I woudl take the signs out of their hands and destroy them, or maybe drive by with a huge bucket of black paint. If I needed to be physical though to get the signs down though, I would.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How far would you have gone? Would you beat somebody unconscious if they weren't willing to bring down the signs?
I tell you what, if I saw them on the side of the road doing that, I would have pulled over to deal with them. It woudl have started with diplomacy and either way it would have ended with those signs coming down.
quote:Since blastocysts or zygotes are killed in surgical abortions seldom, if ever, why would you suggest these?
Of course, parading around with a blastocyst or zygote emblazoned on a placard might not be quite so rhetorically compelling.
quote:Congratulations - you're a bully and a brute and, if you did that, would likely go to jail.
That would be the last option, but I will admit I am not above it. Most likely I would talk with them, and then if they refused I would call the cops. If they were still out there the next day I woudl give the cops one more chance. If I had to though I woudl take the signs out of their hands and destroy them, or maybe drive by with a huge bucket of black paint. If I needed to be physical though to get the signs down though, I would.
quote:To be fairer, he's saying he's willing to use violence to take the law into his own hands even though he could, if he so desired, do other things to avoid those pictures being seen by his daughter.
To be fair, it sounded a bit more like Hookt was saying that he's willing to take the law into his own hands and physically assault people because he believes they're harming his daughter.
quote:I agree. It doesn't mean we have to misrepresent others' words though.
I believe that a lot of things harm us in myriad ways. That doesn't give me the right to physically assault people.
quote:Again, no disagreement.
To be fairer, he's saying he's willing to use violence to take the law into his own hands even though he could, if he so desired, do other things to avoid those pictures being seen by his daughter.
quote:That doesn't make him any better. He's still comfortable using violence to censor speech he doesn't approve.
I don't agree that violence is the right course to take, but it wasn't Hookt's first option.
quote:Assuming that it's public display (and not targeted specifically at my child, which would indicate a totally different danger) and the person wouldn't stop after talking to them, and in no particular order: avoid, sue, speak to the property owner (if applicable), counter protest, boycott (if they have economic interests I can target), editorialize.
Out of nothing but curiousity, if people were showing one's children pornography and the police wouldn't do anything about it, what would be considered a justifiable response?
quote:Were Northerners, where I imagine fewer lynchings took place, just as entertained and engaging in photo trade? I wasn't there, I guess I just preferred to imagine that some people might be living their lives just not paying attention to the atrocities being committed, and if subjected to a rude enough awakening would actually care.
Sadly (horribly) lynchings weren't considered shocking by much of the population. Sometimes people even considered them as appropriate family entertainment even bringing picnics.
There was also a considerable trade in photos and postcards showing lynchings.
So, probably not.
quote:I'd argue that using violence only after other options are exhausted does indeed make a person better. Most people are okay with using violence (or at least the threat of it) to censor speech.
That doesn't make him any better. He's still comfortable using violence to censor speech he doesn't approve.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
quote:"Most people"? Really?
Most people are okay with using violence (or at least the threat of it) to censor speech.
quote:The same constitutional issues still exist, so it's not likely to work.
Suing for emotional damages might well work too. I'm sure having those pictures in a court room would convince most people that you shouldn't have to look at them.
quote:Which of these is involved in the protester example?
If you can not respect me and my beliefs, or my personal space
quote:You've got it exactly, actually. The forceps image PSI described sounded to me like the result of an intact dilation and extraction, which prior to their banning comprised approximately 0.17% of all abortions in the U.S, so I responded with an example that I thought was an equally poor rhetorical choice.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Since blastocysts or zygotes are killed in surgical abortions seldom, if ever, why would you suggest these?
Of course, parading around with a blastocyst or zygote emblazoned on a placard might not be quite so rhetorically compelling.
quote:PSI specified that the pictures were of late-term abortions. I take her at her word.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Moreover, pictures from week 7 can and are used - obviously, the pictures shown are much, much larger, but they still look like a baby.
quote:I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that a picture could be taken for medical reasons.
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
Not that they look any less disturbing, but then again, who's sitting at the bedside of a woman having an abortion, camera in hand?
quote:It's possible these were pictures of fetuses aborted via saline (a procedure used less often now than previously).
There's one picture I've seen where the fetus is actually almost black. (I guess from decay?)
quote:Inasmuch as violence or the threat of it is used to enforce any law, and there are some laws limiting free speech, then yes I would think so. I probably should have qualified that statement better.
posted by Dagonee:quote:"Most people"? Really?
Most people are okay with using violence (or at least the threat of it) to censor speech.
quote:I agree. I really like the idea of giant placards showing laughing babies, rather than gruesome images of dead ones. It gets the point across much more forcefully. I also think anti-abortion groups (and politicians) should spend much more effort and time on promoting adoption than they do today. If there's a group anywhere that used these tactics instead of resorting to callous barbarism, I would consider joining them.
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
They should.
It's disgusting to do that.
I don't understand why they cannot find a more civil and polite way to fight against abortion than disgusting people and making them feel frustrated and worse.
quote:Actually, it doesn't.
I really like the idea of giant placards showing laughing babies
quote:When a pro-life group set up a similar display on UH campus, complete with gigantic mutilated fetus pictures, a group of students decided an equally offensive form of protest would be to pass out coat hangers to everyone present. I'm not sure I fully agree with the method, but it was amusing to watch.
Would there be anything wrong with pro-choice advocates assembling and holding up coat hangers painted red?
quote:Because ratings on movies are voluntary, not government-mandated.
With that in mind why can't we apply the same restrictions to public displays and protest?
quote:The problem is that the criteria needed to evaluate this is arbitrary. What if someone doesn't want their kids to see unmarried men and women people holding hands? Or they only oppose gay couples holding hands. "I want to protect my children and don't want them to see that" applies just as strongly to such situations.
Those persons that can not conform to these basic tenants of human decency and respect the rights of others should have their own rights limited. I am trying to protect my daughter, and my right as a parent to raise her as I see fit. Is that really to much to ask?
quote:
it's still better than pictures pictures which largely garner a negative reaction and 'more forcefully' make pro-lifers seem like nutters.
quote:Is this true? I don't have data either way, but it hasn't been established that this is true. I know what my own preferences would be, but one thing is true - people are talking about them and what they want to have happen. It is negative here, but it's still attention. Perhaps the reaction here is not the only one that occurs.
they might be able to get the same effect and not be as graphically offensive if they used more metaphorical pictures,
quote:People do have control over whether or not it happens.
People should have control over when that responsibility arrives.
quote:Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
quote:Thing is, when I called the local pro-life pregnancy help center, they told me that they had had several positive referrals from the crazy street-corner pro-life group. (They also made sure I knew that they didn't agree with the method.) But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
In other words, maybe the pictures are working the majority of the time exactly as the protesters hoped they would. How does that change things?
quote:The morning after pill and rape kit makes rape even less of a factor in unplanned conception.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
quote:Unless your doctor or pharmacist refuses to give you one.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The morning after pill and rape kit makes rape even less of a factor in unplanned conception.
quote:How do we know there wouldn't be fewer? If a method that was less likely to capture attention was used, how do we know that doesn't mean less attention would be paid?
But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
quote:More attention might be paid if they beat children in front of the clinic too. Do you really want to suggest that the end justifies the means?
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:How do we know there wouldn't be fewer? If a method that was less likely to capture attention was used, how do we know that doesn't mean less attention would be paid?
But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
quote:Actually, if there were organizations in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
I wonder how the protesters would feel if people picketed their churches with giant signs showing graphic pictures of witch burnings and torture from the inquisition
quote:Additionally, there are religious groups that consider the morning after pill to be equivalent to an abortion. There is also at least once large denomination that discourages the use of contraception.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Unless your doctor or pharmacist refuses to give you one.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The morning after pill and rape kit makes rape even less of a factor in unplanned conception.
quote:Actually, I would prefer they limit the exposure of graphic, disturbing, and offensive pictures to those that are actually able to make such a decision. Young children are typically not in the position to legislate against torture or have an abortion.
Actually, if there were churches in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
That certainly seems like something that should stop. Or would you prefer that people protest quietly by holding up pictures of cute frogs someplace they couldn't be seen? Because who cares what atrocities are comitted as long as we don't talk about it.
quote:While there has recently been some evidence to the contrary that not everyone accepts that pregnancy comes from sex, I'm willing to bet that 99% of fertile Americans know.
There are many people who do not fully understand contraception
quote:I read this as I explained. If you're trying to say something that doesn't boil down to "ends justify the means", then please explain what you're getting at, because I don't see it.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Is this true? I don't have data either way, but it hasn't been established that this is true. I know what my own preferences would be, but one thing is true - people are talking about them and what they want to have happen. It is negative here, but it's still attention. Perhaps the reaction here is not the only one that occurs.
In other words, maybe the pictures are working the majority of the time exactly as the protesters hoped they would. How does that change things?
quote:I won't get into a discussion when you're using that kind of loaded language. It isn't conductive to any kind of meaningful discussion, and to me, it shows why you favor the pictures. It seems that you want to get your point across, period.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Because who cares what atrocities are comitted as long as we don't talk about it.
quote:There isn't necessarily a consitutional right to displaying the signs being discussed either. They could be judged indecent. People don't have a constitutional right to wave large banners with pornography on them. The same may apply here.
Your non-sequitur does not follow. There is no constitutional right to assault.
quote:You're asking my opinion about it?
But when it comes down to it, do you think that the protesters should be holding up the signs that many people find horrific, if it gets their point across, or as you say, works as they hope it will work?
quote:Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe continuing the search for more effective measures makes some sense.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
quote:I once heard "abstinence only" sex ed equated to "just hold it" potty training. It's a shallow metaphor, but it made me giggle.
Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe continuing the search for more effective measure makes some sense.
quote:Telling people not to have sex isn't very effective, that's true.
Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
quote:So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population. I guess its a start. Thats still roughly 150,000 females, perhaps fertile 100,000 depending on which fraction is under/overage.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:While there has recently been some evidence to the contrary that not everyone accepts that pregnancy comes from sex, I'm willing to bet that 99% of fertile Americans know.
There are many people who do not fully understand contraception
Maybe 95% to allow for the preteens. Of course, if an eleven-year-old gets pregnant, there's most likely a man somewhere that needs to go to prison for a very, very long time.
quote:For clarification, indecency and pornography are very different things in the first amendment context. The latter may be outright banned, in any context, as long as the law is definite enough to avoid a chilling effect. Pornography, as it is (not) defined by the courts, is not protected speech. Indecency is protected speech, although less protected over the airwaves (and possibly some other contexts - I haven't researched) than some other forms of speech.
There isn't necessarily a consitutional right to displaying the signs being discussed either. They could be judged indecent. People don't have a constitutional right to wave large banners with pornography on them. The same may apply here.
quote:Rarely have I seen such a blatant case of falsely putting words into somebody else's mouth.
So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population.
quote:The eleven-year-olds who are pregnant most likely as a result of rape? That's not a "start" to anything. Don't get your hopes up. The fully-cognizant adults who use abortion as birth control aren't even in the same galaxy.
So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population.
quote:What Canada and Mexico choose to do has NOTHING to do with what America chooses to do. I don't vote in either of those places.
What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
quote:I feel like I wasn't that far off in the first place then.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Then there is that "should." I don't believe in "shoulds" and public moralizing in general, but on the balance, abortion is a great deal worse than displaying the effects of the abortion. I wouldn't participate in a protest like that, but if I'm going to start moralizing about behavior at the abortion clinic, it certainly isn't going to start with those outside.
quote:I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
quote:So abortion clinics are in completely isolated areas at the very end of dead end streets that do not have any other commercial or residential places anywhere near them?
I think they are entirely avoidable unless someone is actually going to the abortion clinic
quote:That (again obviously) is not a choice that works for everybody.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Telling people not to have sex isn't very effective, that's true.
Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Choosing not to have sex is extremely effective.
quote:It's not a choice that everybody chooses, but it works for everyone who implements that choice except a small percentage of those who are forced to have sex against their will.
That (again obviously) is not a choice that works for everybody.
quote:You really should for two reasons:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
quote:If that were true, we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. Since we do, there seems to be a problem with the "just don't have sex" solution.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
With that definition of "work", I'd say that it works for everybody who doesn't want to risk conceiving a child.
quote:
You really should for two reasons
quote:If you want do that in your anti-abortion work, be my guest, but please don't tell me where my priorities should be.
If abortion is really "murder", you should really be concerned regardless of where it happens.
quote:Be that as it may, it does not mean that most women lack control over whether or not they become pregnant. They do have such control and choose not to assert it, for whatever reason.
If that were true, we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. Since we do, there seems to be a problem with the "just don't have sex" solution.
quote:Try as I might, I can't read minds. If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines. If you're unclear in your position, it's due to your own unwillingness to take a stand.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
You are far off. Seriously, are you even reading? Or are you inventing things and then shutting out all evidence to the contrary?
If you want to gallop around attacking strawmen, leave me out of it. Nothing you say resembles my views or my posts, and I resent you using my name to pretend it does.
quote:That doesn't follow from the definition of "work", as I understood it, that you used earlier.
If that were true, we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies.
quote:Without making any comment on what either you or Katarina have said in this thread, that isn't true. If somebody doesn't come out and answer a question to your satisfaction, you can choose to read between the lines, or you can choose to acknowledge that you don't know their mind on that exact matter. I think the second option is the better of the two.
If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines.
quote:I don't see anyone who has advocated that in this thread.
Why does it seem better to force women to choose either pregnancy or abstinence?
quote:I gave a perfectly clear stance: due to my own experiences, my feeling is that I would not wish to legally hamper the protesters in any way, because doing so would create strictures on free speech that I find intolerable.
Try as I might, I can't read minds. If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines. If you're unclear in your position, it's due to your own unwillingness to take a stand.
quote:True enough.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Without making any comment on what either you or Katarina have said in this thread, that isn't true. If somebody doesn't come out and answer a question to your satisfaction, you can choose to read between the lines, or you can choose to acknowledge that you don't know their mind on that exact matter. I think the second option is the better of the two.
If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines.
quote:Because the idea of improving birth control was put forth as a "solution" to the abortion problem. The existence of such control now suggests that such control will not "solve" the abortion problem.
What is the point, then, of responding to a suggestion that we improve birth control with the "all people have to do is abstain if they don't want to get pregnant" argument?
quote:OK, so "shoulds" are bad.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Then there is that "should." I don't believe in "shoulds" and public moralizing in general
quote:Except when you feel like they aren't.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Actually, if there were organizations in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
That certainly seems like something that should stop.
quote:You don't wish to discuss morality, except to make the offhanded implication that my views are immoral.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
And, if you must know, I don't wish to discuss what should be moral. I'm not interested in the views on morality of someone who is okay with abortion.
quote:Yes.
I'm not sure I understand. By "such control" do you mean abstinance?
quote:Morality is subjective, but a few morals are universal.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
You don't wish to discuss morality, except to make the offhanded implication that my views are immoral.
quote:Actually they are. Not only are they in the same galaxy, they're in the same nation with all the real world ambiguities that apply.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:The eleven-year-olds who are pregnant most likely as a result of rape? That's not a "start" to anything. Don't get your hopes up. The fully-cognizant adults who use abortion as birth control aren't even in the same galaxy.
So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population.
quote:Priorities is overstating it.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
If you want do that in your anti-abortion work, be my guest, but please don't tell me where my priorities should be.
quote:Which ones?
but a few morals are universal.
quote:If not solve, certainly ease. If, for example, a woman had to go to the effort to be fertile that she now does to counter that. Go to her doctor, buy a prescription. Or a man had to be sure that he used whatever the reverse of a condom would be.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Yes.
I'm not sure I understand. By "such control" do you mean abstinance?
Rejecting the idea that more effective birth control would "solve" the abortion problem does not mean one rejects the idea of more effective birth control.
quote:None. I didn't want to put words in your mouth or assume you meant anthing in particular. I do not believe there are any universal morals.
Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix:
Thats the trick,... which ones indeed.
quote:Sex isn't something people shouldn't have. It's fun!
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Telling people not to have sex isn't very effective, that's true.
Choosing not to have sex is extremely effective.
quote:What the heck? I said we should improve birth control so that we can have our cake and eat it too. I wasn't saying abstinence doesn't work to prevent pregnancy.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Because the idea of improving birth control was put forth as a "solution" to the abortion problem. The existence of such control now suggests that such control will not "solve" the abortion problem.
What is the point, then, of responding to a suggestion that we improve birth control with the "all people have to do is abstain if they don't want to get pregnant" argument?
quote:Okay, so how would your stance be modified if your experiences included PSI's stated situation?
I gave a perfectly clear stance: due to my own experiences, my feeling is that I would not wish to legally hamper the protesters in any way, because doing so would create strictures on free speech that I find intolerable.
I freely admit that if I were to have different experiences or see additional evidence, this may be modified.
quote:Oh, it's worse than you think. My sights are set a good deal lower than "no abortion in the US". I just want individual states to have the right, if they so wish, to ban abortion within their own borders.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:You really should for two reasons:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
A) If you do not, I suspect that anyone of a low income living within driving/busing distance of Canada would be able to avoid the ban. Anyone of a moderate income or higher would be able to avoid the ban outright.
If I were to guess, that would leave maybe 1/5th or less of the population that could be successfully stopped from having an abortion.
The ban would be even more of a farce than prohibition with plenty of consequences.
B) If abortion is really "murder", you should really be concerned regardless of where it happens. Additionally, I would also bet that even if you did not (as evidence from the example of same-sex marriage) that other advocates *would* try to take into account this and take measures. It is worth considering what these measures would end up looking like and whether they would be worse than the problem at hand.
* by "the ban", this is shorthand for if anti-abortion advocates for their way and implemented a simple blanket "no abortion access in the US" policy
quote:
Originally posted by PSI:
My personal major issue is that I can't get home without passing them, and there's no way to avoid my children seeing this.
quote:You're not really taking her description into account because you don't think the premise of her account is true.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
I think they are entirely avoidable unless someone is actually going to the abortion clinic
quote:Unless you can't anticipate the encounter and/or you think the subject isn't appropriate for your children to discuss. For example, if I had young children I wouldn't want people protesting premarital sex to be standing right outside of my house with graphic pictures of different STDs.
Kids' interactions with objectionable (but protected) speech on public display is best handled by parents talking with kids, and informing them about what the heck is going on before the actual encounter.
quote:Beyond having the right, do you support individual states actually instituting these bans? Do you believe that such bans would be effective?
Oh, it's worse than you think. My sights are set a good deal lower than "no abortion in the US". I just want individual states to have the right, if they so wish, to ban abortion within their own borders.
quote:"I am afraid that the pleasantness of an employment does not always envince its propriety."
Sex isn't something people shouldn't have. It's fun!
quote:Graphic Picture of the Herpes Virus
Originally posted by camus:
if I had young children I wouldn't want people protesting premarital sex to be standing right outside of my house with graphic pictures of different STDs.
quote:By illegal do you mean you'd ban the option of abortion in EVERY case, including where a doctor recommends it in order save the life of a mother?
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I would advocate making abortion illegal in my state, yes.
quote:Do you believe that making abortion illegal in your state is an effective means of eliminating abortions by the citizens of your state? Based on your previous comments, it sounds to me like you're less concerned with actually preventing abortions than in making sure they are illegal. Am I misunderstanding you?
I would advocate making abortion illegal in my state, yes.
quote:So by illegal would you make it illegal for individuals to request an abortion be done and instead limit it solely to the doctors discretion in life or death situations?
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
No, I do not mean that.
quote:I'm actually not familiar with that phrase
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Why the third degree on my opinions about abortion, folks?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:It Wiggles?
when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, it wiggles.
quote:Who knew Herpes was so pretty?
Originally posted by Scott R:
Graphic Picture of the Herpes Virus
Wow. You'd object to THAT? Man, I thought *I* was prudish.
quote:I didn't notice anyone citing any reason for rejecting abortion - just that they rejected it. The suggestion that anti-abortion folk develop a rigorous secular argument for their position is a good idea.
I haven't noticed ANYONE in this thread citing their faith as for their rejection of abortion.
quote:No argument there.
If abortion is murder, then it should be illegal, no exceptions.
quote:And this is where we get stuck, I think, on religion. I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
If we cannot answer the question of whether abortion is murder, then we must err on the side of caution.
quote:Because our system of government protects the minority from the "tyranny of the majority" by not allowing a direct vote on all issues. If a direct vote by the citizens in each state were the way we decided these sort of things, slavery could have continued for many decades.
If you disagree with my reasoning, then we should at least be allowed to vote on the matter. But for some reason, we continue killing babies, and we don't get to vote on the matter. What's going on here?
quote:The constitution was not meant to be an exhaustive list of rights. In fact, there was some controversy about it specifically because of a fear that people would come to believe that there were no rights other than those enumerated in the constitution. Alexander Hamilton anticipated this:
And how does that jibe with the torturous interpretation of the so-called "right-to-privacy" that is nowhere mentioned in the constitution but is somehow inferred
quote:The "right to privacy" was not invented in Roe v. Wade - it had already been established through a number of previous supreme court rulings. The application to Roe v. Wade was not about being able to abort the fetus in privacy, but that a woman had domain over her body and could choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wished. Privacy is broader concept than just an accounting of how many people know what you're doing.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
quote:If we let the people decide by popular vote then the mood of the day can dramatically and negatively the affect the lives of those in the minority. I do not trust the population at large to make good decisions about complicated legal matters, properly weighing constitutional and precidential factors.
So do we leave it up to the judges who obviously in this case had their decision in mind and were going to interpret the law however necessary in order to justify their decision? Or do we let the people decide?
quote:If there's someone up their judging us, then I expect that we'll be judged according to our knowledge. I'm sure very few people that have abortions believe they are committing murder and I don't think that they will be treated harshly for what they do in ignorance. If you are sure that there are murders happening then I suppose you might be accountable for keeping quiet. I would question how you can be so sure, though.
But does he judge the rest of us too?
quote:It seems like conservative candidates have gotten a lot of play out of espousing a pro-life position, but they rarely seem to act on that position. Given several years with a pro-life president, pro-life congress, pro-life senate, and pro-life supreme court, I'm rather amazed at how little action there was on abortion. Is it worth voting only for pro-life candidates, regardless of their position on other issues, if their pro-lifeness is just a campaign gimmick?
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
No. I just do my best to argue my position effectively. And I vote for pro-life candidates only. That is one of the only things that will outright disqualify you from receiving my vote, is having a pro-choice stance. I view that as being a marker of either deficient morality or deficient intelligence.
quote:Yeah, it sucks. Don't think for a moment that I'm happy with any of our politicians. It seems like by simple virtue of being eminently qualified to be president pretty much rules out the possibility of your ever becoming president. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.
Originally posted by MattP:
It seems like conservative candidates have gotten a lot of play out of espousing a pro-life position, but they rarely seem to act on that position. Given several years with a pro-life president, pro-life congress, pro-life senate, and pro-life supreme court, I'm rather amazed at how little action there was on abortion. Is it worth voting only for pro-life candidates, regardless of their position on other issues, if their pro-lifeness is just a campaign gimmick?
quote:I don't think that's a settled matter. Even if it is a separate human being, it's a peculiar one with requirements that differ from other human beings. It completely relies on the mother for it's continued existence but an abortion ban would mean that she cannot choose to cut off that support. If a human being will die absent a marrow donation from another person, can we compel that other person to provide their marrow? What about a blood transfusion? Can that be compelled to save a life? Should people that refuse be tried as murderers?
Has no one yet pointed out in this thread that the thing being aborted is NOT a part of the woman, but is instead a separate human being?
quote:It's the lack of certainty which makes me think it should be up to the woman, rather than the government or society at large. If God wants her to know that it is wrong, I expect him to make that clear to her.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
That fact that there are these questions are what makes me wonder why we let abortion go on unabated. Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.
quote:It's been said but it bears repeating. How is this baby different from a newborn? A murder ban means that the mother cannot stop supporting the baby by refusing it nourishment, she can only try and find someone else to take the job. Since there's no provision for finding another source of support for an unborn fetus, she can't pass that job off to someone else until it's born. Unfairly, we've chosen to remedy this problem by offering the woman the choice to kill the child, rather than wait. Not even let the child die, by ignoring it, but willful and intentional killing.
It completely relies on the mother for it's continued existence but an abortion ban would mean that she cannot choose to cut off that support.
quote:The baby isn't uniquely dependent on her at that point, as you've pointed out in the remainder of your post.
It's been said but it bears repeating. How is this baby different from a newborn?
quote:But is it wrong to make it so that the child at least has a chance of having its dependency shift to someone who'll gladly accept it, rather than kill it instead? As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks. Is it unfair to ask the woman to pay that price for the life of a child that she was half responsible for creating? Just so that it can have a chance? (A chance, by the way, that a terminal patient on life support does not have, and therein lies the distinction.)
The baby isn't uniquely dependent on her at that point, as you've pointed out in the remainder of your post.
quote:If you put all the arguments from both sides together, I guess that is what it boils down to. But not when you're talking to one person whose opinions might not be there's no God, babies aren't people, and potential doesn't matter.
It boils down to who gets to decide this....the mother, or someone else.
quote:Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant.
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks.
quote:I think there's some argument about what constitutes a "baby" or a "person" but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that babies aren't people.
babies aren't people
quote:Heck, I've never been pregnant, but I know there's a lot more to it than that. "Health problems of the mother" can cover a broad range of problems during the pregnancy, delivery, and long after. Even in my relatively small circle of acquaintances, I knew one woman who died from a postpartum blood clot and another who died from a staph infection acquired in the hospital recovering from her delivery.
Originally posted by scholar:
quote:Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant.
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks.
quote:This argument has been made many times, by many people, including atheists.
I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
quote:This is just a variant of Pascal's wager, and subject to the same weakness. You have zero knowledge of what an objective morality might be; therefore it is possible that it includes an injunction to abort fetuses whenever possible, as a positive duty. Indeed, for all you know, you are required to kill people who try to prevent you from aborting fetuses, including the mother. If you do not do this, you will be punsihed in hell for all eternity, and so forth. Since this scenario is exactly as probable as the one you outline, your argument fails.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.
quote:Because you say so? I don't think so. My argument is that we, being members of a so-called democracy who get to make the rules as we see fit, get to make decisions about what is legal or illegal. I submit that because it is possible that abortion is murder, it must be considered when determining it's legality. But this option has been usurped by a branch of the government that is acting outside of its jurisdiction.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:This is just a variant of Pascal's wager, and subject to the same weakness. You have zero knowledge of what an objective morality might be; therefore it is possible that it includes an injunction to abort fetuses whenever possible, as a positive duty. Indeed, for all you know, you are required to kill people who try to prevent you from aborting fetuses, including the mother. If you do not do this, you will be punsihed in hell for all eternity, and so forth. Since this scenario is exactly as probable as the one you outline, your argument fails.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.
quote:You're exhibiting your own willful refusal to accept that other people might be able to make a logical and coherent argument which is not consistent with your personal belief system.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Because you are exhibiting your own willful refusal to see it for what it really is.
quote:And I submit that because it is possible that abortion is desirable, that must likewise be considered when determining its legality.
I submit that because it is possible that abortion is murder, it must be considered when determining it's legality.
quote:It's a crappy reason, that's why. I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway? If God really does exist, and avoidance of hell entails belief in that God, then what does it matter the reason why one chooses to believe in him, if the belief is sincere?
quote:Because it presumes the choice is between the Christian god and no god when there are many other choices. In some belief systems, choosing the wrong god may be worse than choosing none.
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway?
quote:Oh man when I saw that the thread title was changed, I knew you had to be behind it.
... having a pro-choice stance. I view that as being a marker of either deficient morality or deficient intelligence.
quote:Butchering a cow is considered graphic. Hot, hot, hot sex is considered graphic.
This is one of the major reasons for objecting to graphic photos of abortions. If it wasn't really something horrible, it wouldn't be considered graphic.
quote:But how many people can just decide to believe? I know I can't. And even if it would be smarter, it would be dishonest for me to agree to something just to avoid a potential punishment.
Originally posted by steven:
"I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases."
Interesting. Wouldn't a middle ground be smarter, though?
I direct that not at Eaquae so much specifically, but in general.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.
quote:I'm sure someone must have said this, but I'll reiterate it.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway? If God really does exist, and avoidance of hell entails belief in that God, then what does it matter the reason why one chooses to believe in him, if the belief is sincere?
quote:I'd like to hear it.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This argument has been made many times, by many people, including atheists.
I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
You might be accurate if you added "that is convincing to me" after the word "argument." But your belief as described is simply wrong. There is such an argument.
quote:I think prefacing the statement with "I don't believe" made my post as accurate as it could be.
You might be accurate if you added "that is convincing to me"
quote:Well, no. If I honestly believe something is truth, a "middle ground" would be just as dishonest as someone who doesn't really believe God is a truth accepting Pascal's Wager. It's "choosing" to believe a certain way just to cover all the bases.
Originally posted by steven:
"I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases."
Interesting. Wouldn't a middle ground be smarter, though?
I direct that not at Eaquae so much specifically, but in general.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.
quote:Has it really been years?
Originally posted by Kwea:
I hold that attempting to engage Resh in any sort of actual discussion is ignorant and futile, at least in serious matters. He will, without fail, announce why he is smarter and better equipped to determine the "right" answer than anyone else in the thread, and announce his moral superiority to one and all.
I hold the past years worth of threads to be evidence.
quote:[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?
quote:1. RE: non-religious arguments: It's not a religious argument. I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide. It has its own genetic coding, it's own physical being. Later on during the pregnancy, it begins to acquire all of its human physical traits. In its last months, it is responsive and thinking. In short, I believe human life begins when a living creature with unique human DNA is created in the womb fom its parent cells. That's not a religious argument.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And this is where we get stuck, I think, on religion. I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
If we cannot answer the question of whether abortion is murder, then we must err on the side of caution.
quote:Why then?
I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide.
quote:If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?
The brain-dead man will never think again, or move, or live very long for that matter. The fetus will gain sentince
quote:Sez you. The god in question might disagree.
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?
quote:I thought the quote went something like, "Thou shall have no other God before me."
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
quote:Allah is simply how you say "God" in Arabic. I pray to Allah, and I'm Catholic. Furthermore, the vast majority of pertinent scripture points to hem both being the same God, and this thought is backed up by most Christian and Muslim scholars.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Sez you. The god in question might disagree.
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?
quote:1. I already went through that in my post. It's a living creature with it's own seperate human DNA, developing into a full human body. I believe the right to human life begins when human life begins. How is that a religious argument?
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Why then?
I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide.
quote:If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?
The brain-dead man will never think again, or move, or live very long for that matter. The fetus will gain sentince
quote:Because no matter what care you give a sperm, or an egg, no matter how you nourish it and provide it with an optimal environment in which to grow, it will never be a human being.
If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?
quote:How do mono- and dizygotic twins factor into your perspective, with respect to the importance of unique human DNA? *interested
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide. It has its own genetic coding, it's own physical being. ... I believe human life begins when a living creature with unique human DNA is created in the womb fom its parent cells.
quote:Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?" We now have a much longer lifespan because we have done so, both as a matter of public funding choices (water hygeine, FDA controls on contamination, etc.) as well as parental responsibilities to children (treatment for meningitis or pneumonia, for example). I don't see where the fetus should not be as protected as other children, in the context of arguing it is as important as (and has the same claim on our obligations) as a born child.
Originally posted by Belle:
A fertilized, implanted egg, on the other hand, will. As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death. As in, for instance, DNR orders for the terminally ill. If they want to request no one intervene and allow them to die naturally I have no problem with it.
If a fertiled egg never implants and is shed by the woman's body naturally, that is a natural death. So is miscarriage.
quote:If you were really following Pascal's Wager, you would not merely verbally proclaim belief. Of course, I believe that to a large extent, we believe what we choose to believe.
Pascal's wager does not work to me because its pretty insulting to think God has need of friends so badly a mere verbal proclamation of belief will suddenly convince him to love you back instead of stuffing your butt in hell.
quote:That's an interesting question by itself (not just as a rhetorical point concerning abortion), but I'm not so sure the answer is as easy or straightforward as you imply.
Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?"
quote:*nods
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
That's an interesting question by itself (not just as a rhetorical point concerning abortion), but I'm not so sure the answer is as easy or straightforward as you imply.
I certainly do what I can to extend the life of my children, a point which is much more poignant since we almost lost Xerxes a year and a half ago, and would have without modern medicine, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a moral obligation.
) And yet it would have been a "natural death" if someone hadn't intervened.quote:But it's still got potential. It's just one step removed from that potential. The optimal environment for a sperm includes an egg. The optimal environment for an egg includes a sperm. The optimal environment for a fertilized egg includes a uterus. I don't see the potential of an egg as being any different, logically, than the combined potential of the egg and sperm that create it.
Because no matter what care you give a sperm, or an egg, no matter how you nourish it and provide it with an optimal environment in which to grow, it will never be a human being.
quote:We frequently act to interfere with natural death. If these are persons with potential that must be protected, shouldn't we be applying our resources to try to determine what causes an implantation to fail and how we can prevent that? Even if we're OK with natural death, we tend to mourn the natural deaths of other people, why not of unimplanted blastocysts?
As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death.
quote:Again, we interfere with the natural process all the time. Being part of nature ourselves, everything we do is part of the natural process. Just because something is natural, it's not necessarily objectively good or bad. Botulism is natural, but we don't complain about interfering with nature when someone becomes sick from it and we try to help them.
I see abortion as a direct interference in the natural process
quote:I've never answered it before, steven's just being an idiot.
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
He answered this before? My apologies. I am very confused amidst all of the threads we have had here, with all of the very different people involved.
[It is my personal failing.]
quote:I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?" We now have a much longer lifespan because we have done so, both as a matter of public funding choices (water hygeine, FDA controls on contamination, etc.) as well as parental responsibilities to children (treatment for meningitis or pneumonia, for example). I don't see where the fetus should not be as protected as other children, in the context of arguing it is as important as (and has the same claim on our obligations) as a born child.
Originally posted by Belle:
A fertilized, implanted egg, on the other hand, will. As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death. As in, for instance, DNR orders for the terminally ill. If they want to request no one intervene and allow them to die naturally I have no problem with it.
If a fertiled egg never implants and is shed by the woman's body naturally, that is a natural death. So is miscarriage.
quote:That's not really an argument I was making. My argument is that a zygote/fetus is not just human life, but a human life, it's own human being.
Originally posted by MattP:
I don't see human life as having a distinct beginning moment (other than Adam/Eve/primordial goo), but rather as a continuum. There's no point where we go from the cells of our parents, which are human life, to something that is not human life, to something that is human life again. Just being human life, whether a blastocyst or a skin cell, doesn't give any particular value to the object of discussion.
quote:But we can prevent many miscarriages. We can probably prevent many more if we put enough resources into doing so.
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
When monozygotic twinning occurs, I believe that two human lives are created from one. When the zygote splits, it leaves two seperate human beigns. They have identical DNA, but seperate bodies
quote:Ah. I'm not sure why that leg of your argument isn't circular, then.
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
The main idea behind the "unique" argument is "different from the parents".
quote:But you do, apparently, need to make stuff up about other people.
Originally posted by steven:
I don't need to call names to bolster my arguments.
quote:Flaming Toad is correct, I'm talking about deaths that cannot be prevented without efforts that are beyond the reach of medical science at this time.
I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
quote:Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
For example, I believe that miscarriages should be prevented to the extent medical science allows us to prevent them. Sometimes it's a simple hormone imbalance that can be corrected, or drugs can stop preterm labor. But there are many things medical science cannot presently do, and those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur.
quote:Yup. Like those who drink and use harmful drugs during pregnancy should be guilty of neglect. Just as if you would find a parent guilty of neglect if they let their child die of a simple infection that was easily cured by antibiotics because they didn't carry them to a doctor.
Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
quote:It should be noted that this (not taking all the steps medical science allows) is not the standard for criminal neglect.
Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
quote:I still don't see where she has said this is the case, CT.
Belle, then what is different about the unborn that makes them less of a priority than born children?
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There is extensive miscarriage research being conducted, as I'm sure you're aware.
quote:Right.
Moreover, miscarriages likely stem from many causes. Vaccines prevent about 2 million childhood deaths a year. There's nothing to say that we won't find analog preventive measures for miscarriage.
That's what I implied -- at least, if we look for it. But making looking for it a priority isn't consistent with a stance that it just "can be allowed to happen." I usually avoid abortion thread like the plague these days, because I have already firmed up my own thoughts and stance on it.quote:I found three studies in about two seconds of googling. Folic acid, alcohol, smoking, and pesticides have all been studied for their effects on miscarriage rates.
Is there really? The dearth of such research has long been bemoaned in the medical literature. Where are you finding an extensive amount? *interested
quote:The words used were "those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur." (emphasis added)
That's what I implied -- at least, if we look for it. But making looking for it a priority isn't consistent with a stance that it just "can be allowed to happen."
quote:But, prior to immunizations, we did "stand" for large rates of children dying from childhood diseases. I'm not really sure what "stand for it" means - certainly neither miscarriages now or deaths to measles, smallpox, etc. then weren't considered good things, and steps were taken to the extent possible to eliminate them. But the point is those deaths occurred and we didn't, as a result, decide that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing.
We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet.
quote:First of all, don't assume I don't know what it feels like to miscarry, or that I'm not sympathetic to how women feel.
Let's just say it is one of the worst things you could do to a woman who has miscarried.
quote:Dagonee, we are speaking of 2-4 million deaths per year. The investment in those studies sorts of studies is miniscule. Compare this to research on leukemia, which affects about 2000-2500 children per year in the US. If you would like the numbers, I will certainly find them, but I can assure you that the amount of money spent on childhood leukemia research is many orders of magnitude greater than 1/1000 the amount spent on miscarriage research. [*grin And before I go to the lengths to go digging, I'd want to know that the results would actually matter to someone. If it is a side point, or irrelevant, I simply do not have the time. I have another 4 hours of worktime to put in this weekend!]
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I found three studies in about two seconds of googling. Folic acid, alcohol, smoking, and pesticides have all been studied for their effects on miscarriage rates.
quote:Right. And I still maintain that "We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet."
The words used were "those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur." (emphasis added)
quote:Not the way we are "standing for" 2-4 million miscarriages a year.
quote:But, prior to immunizations, we did "stand" for large rates of children dying from childhood diseases.
We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet.
quote:And I am not saying that I "as a result, decide[d] that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing." That's a mistatement of what I said, if you were intending to paraphrase me or summarize my history.
I'm not really sure what "stand for it" means - certainly neither miscarriages now or deaths to measles, smallpox, etc. then weren't considered good things, and steps were taken to the extent possible to eliminate them. But the point is those deaths occurred and we didn't, as a result, decide that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing.
quote:Would you agree that in making decisions on how to dispense public resources for research into illnesses/deaths of children, no distinction should be made between born and unborn children?
Originally posted by Belle:
I believe that the vast, vast majority of miscarriages cannot be prevented with medical science as it stands today.... If someday we do find a way to prevent them better than we have now, I would like to see women take advantage of that treatment and save babies who are at risk of dying due to miscarriage.
quote:I'm really confused as to how making abortion illegal means women have no right to control what happens to their bodies. Do you think men have no right to control their bodies?
One difficulty with making abortion illegal is finding a way to teach boys and young men how to treat women appropriately despite the fact that laws say that women have no right to control what happens to their bodies.
quote:*nods
Originally posted by Belle:
CT, I'm sorry because it does look like a trap.
quote:I wouldn't have said that to you, although it would indeed have been the logical consequence of the statement. It would follow from viewing the unborn as no more or less important than born children.
I mean, if I say yes, put public resources into the research to save the unborn I'll be countered with "So you'd let a five year old die of a disease that could be cured if only research had been one on his disease instead of research into miscarriages."
quote:I'll hold myself to gently saying that it isn't a game to me, but rather a matter of grave importance. I take the matter quite seriously, as I have a (small, but heard) voice in making funding decisions.
Sorry, not going to play that game.
quote:I'd certainly agree with you on the first part. For the latter, I'd say that what is may not be what should be, if we take the issue seriously. And I am indeed concerned just as much as with what should be as what is, because both determine what will be.
Let me just say this - we need more money for medical research across the board, into protecting the unborn, the newly born, the young, the adult, the middle-aged, the elderly. I want all of it to be studied and I want medical science to one day cure cancer, cystic fibrosis, and the common cold. But the fact of the matter is that not every disease gets the same attention and funding. What gets funding is what gets good PR. I had colorectal cancer - the number two cancer killer behind lung cancer. Yet where I received chemo all I heard about was fund raisers for breast cancer, all I saw were pink ribbons everywhere. That's just the way it works. It's unfortunate, because I'd love to see us eradicate every deadly disease and every cause of miscarriage but it ain't gonna happen.
You have my sympathies and crossed fingers, though I am sure you do not need them.quote:I don't see why there should be a linear relationship between number of victims and research dollars spent. We certainly take other factors into account, including emotional impact on those who know the victim and suffering incurred prior to death. There's also an element of "fashion" to what diseases are given the most research funding.
Dagonee, we are speaking of 2-4 million deaths per year. The investment in those studies sorts of studies is miniscule. Compare this to research on leukemia, which affects about 2000-2500 children per year in the US. If you would like the numbers, I will certainly find them, but I can assure you that the amount of money spent on childhood leukemia research is many orders of magnitude greater than 1/1000 the amount spent on miscarriage research.
quote:We try to stop some deaths. No one here has denied that.
And, note, most childhood leukemia is the further sequelae of a genetic deficit. We believe these children are born with a propensity to cancer, that this is programmed into them (as my heart failure at 17 yrs old was destined for me). It is, or would have been, a "natural death."
quote:I was not intending to paraphrase you. I was trying to indicate why the fact that some people in a given class die natural deaths is not a compelling reason to me (and, presumably, Belle) to allow intentional killing of that class of people.
And I am not saying that I "as a result, decide[d] that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing." That's a mistatement of what I said, if you were intending to paraphrase me or summarize my history.
quote:After thinking about it, I came to a different conclusion: that "worry" is not a proper measure of worth of the being worried about or the effect of the deaths of such beings.
That is, I didn't come to believe that because I thought it was okay to kill some kids, it should be okay to kill other kids. Rather, I probed why I was much less worried about deaths at pone stage of development than at another, and I came to conclude that I didn't see those deaths as equivalent. That was worth thinking about more, to me.
quote:In short, I don't see inconsistencies here, so I probably can't address your interest.
I also stated "I don't expect everyone to reach the same conclusions (or start from the same perspective, for that matter) as I did. I am very interested in how other people would solve the inconsistencies I couldn't." But that interest wouldn't outweigh my desire for civility with my friends and to refrain from causing more grief in the world.
quote:What response? It's been addressed multiple times here before, both by people who believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and those who believe it should not be allowed in cases of rape.
Originally posted by steven:
I really would like a response on the rape issue.
I'd like a response on that from ANY pro-lifer.
quote:Indeed. I draw a distinction here between what is and what should be. Just because it is -- I think -- doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I don't see why there should be a linear relationship between number of victims and research dollars spent. We certainly take other factors into account, including emotional impact on those who know the victim and suffering incurred prior to death. There's also an element of "fashion" to what diseases are given the most research funding.
quote:Understood. It was a point of clarification about the applicability of terminology that had been used earlier. It appears all here agree about the use of that terminology, which is lovely from my perspective.
We try to stop some deaths. No one here has denied that.
quote:Excellent! Then I have no quibble.
I was not intending to paraphrase you.
quote:I don't take my worry (or lack thereof) as a direct indication of the worth of something. I do, however, take it as an indication of my own underlying beliefs, which is what I was examining.
After thinking about it, I came to a different conclusion: that "worry" is not a proper measure of worth of the being worried about or the effect of the deaths of such beings.
quote:I don't understand what you mean by "a valid indicator of the measure of a death." When I speak of "'equivalence' of death," again, I am speaking particularly of how it reflects individual beliefs and values. The mode or intent of someone else's action is not how I come to know my beliefs about it -- it is my reaction that tells me about myself. Of course, my reaction is based on the facts of the case, but those facts are not equivalent to my judgments.
Moreover, I don't see an examination of the effect of a being's death on others - whether that effect is motivating the spending of resources to avoid it or the mourning of it afterwards - as a valid indicator of the measure of a death or a factor in determining "equivalence" of deaths. Much more important are the means of a death - including intent - and reasons for it.
quote:So much is lost, eh? It is a shame.
We had a decent discussion about the principles underlying that once, although half of it is missing now.
quote:I can see you do not. I think this is because there is some muddled conflation of ideas and/or terms midway.
In short, I don't see inconsistencies here, so I probably can't address your interest.
quote:I'm not sure I understand the concern about putting someone into a "trap" or in being led into one. If one's position, taken to a logical conclusion, leads to an unpleasant place, shouldn't we discuss that place and why we find it unpleasant?
CT, I'm sorry because it does look like a trap. I mean, if I say yes, put public resources into the research to save the unborn I'll be countered with "So you'd let a five year old die of a disease that could be cured if only research had been one on his disease instead of research into miscarriages." Sorry, not going to play that game.
quote:I have no idea what this means. How does a death "reflect individual beliefs and values"?
When I speak of "'equivalence' of death," again, I am speaking particularly of how it reflects individual beliefs and values.
quote:When I said "others" I was referring to "other than the person who died." In this sense, I was referring to the fact that your analysis is of the effect of a death on another being - specifically inducing specific reactions in you (the other being, in this case) as a means of determining how that other being (again, you) really feels/thinks about that death.
The mode or intent of someone else's action is not how I come to know my beliefs about it -- it is my reaction that tells me about myself. Of course, my reaction is based on the facts of the case, but those facts are not equivalent to my judgments.
quote:I'm not sure where the muddled conflation of ideas or terms is occurring.
I can see you do not. I think this is because there is some muddled conflation of ideas and/or terms midway.
quote:But do you think it is worth pursuing in discussion, or would you prefer not to continue? (Or some other option?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm not sure where the muddled conflation of ideas or terms is occurring.
)
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
One difficulty with making abortion illegal is finding a way to teach boys and young men how to treat women appropriately despite the fact that laws say that women have no right to control what happens to their bodies. If you support abortion in the case of rape or incest, with all the proof of rape needed being the woman's claim to her doctor, then I might agree with you. Might.
quote:I didn't call you a liar. I just don't find your clarification any better than my initial interpretation.
No, you can call me a liar if you want, but.
quote:They why do you keep bringing it up?
Talking to me about rape is like talking to a dog about giant squids.
quote:I gotta say...I just watched Obama's discussion about faith and politics, and it reminded me about this thread, and a few other conversation I have had with a few people here at Hatrack.
Originally posted by Kwea:
I agree with CT, at least as far as my intent in discussing these issues yet again.
Also, these discussions tend to bring out the worst in people because it is such a sensitive isuue, and I don't like how most people treat each other in them.
For the most part, this thread has been fairly civil, and I really hope it stays that way. Not because I think we will find a "soloution", but because one fo the only ways to explore these issues is in frank conversation with other people who care , even if they are on the other side of the idealogical fence. Maybe even because they are on the other side of the issues.
quote:See, I don't have a problem with this.... because I don't see it as an imagined difference at all. I see it no different than if they lost a 2 month old, and I feel greatly for them.
It's hard to empathize with another's unborn child. The world isn't different so much as an imagined, hoped-for world to be is different. To the parents who had already entered that world, the loss is much more immediate.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
quote:Posting in the abortion thread as my first Hatrack post seems like a bad idea, but...
I really would like a response on the rape issue.
I'd like a response on that from ANY pro-lifer.
quote:That's very much a matter of perspective. You consider a women "not having control over her body" because she can't have an abortion as women being ignored/devalued. I consider abortion a symptom of a society where both women and children are ignored and devalued. Why is it necessary for women to have abortions in the first place? Do any of those reasons indicate that women are empowered?
Rape is always brought up in any abortion discussion. Creating conditions where women are generally ignored/devalued is not as much.
quote:Carrying a child to term and then putting it up for adoption could also be psychologically damaging.
Carrying a child to term after rape could be quite psychologically damaging for certain women, which is why I consider it a medical issue.
quote:And having an abortion can also be psychologically damaging. We can't protect an individual from all possible consequences of their actions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrying a child to term after rape could be quite psychologically damaging for certain women, which is why I consider it a medical issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrying a child to term and then putting it up for adoption could also be psychologically damaging.
Carrying a child to term and keeping it when that child wasn't desired in the first place could be psychologically damaging.
quote:Yes, it's the killing of a child, but IMO when there's a health risk to the mother, abortion is acceptable. If a woman is traumatized by a rape and further traumatized by carrying the child, then I can see that as a possible health risk due to the deep psychological effects of the entire situation. If you don't see where that's different, then I really don't think I can convince you.
If the reason for being against abortion is that it's the killing of a child, I don't see how any amount of potential psychological damage justifies abortion.
quote:I have no idea what you are saying. If I can't see where it is different from what?
If you don't see where that's different, then I really don't think I can convince you.
quote:If you don't see the difference between the trauma of childbearing/childbirth for a woman who has been raped, and for a woman who hasn't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't see where that's different, then I really don't think I can convince you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what you are saying. If I can't see where it is different from what?
quote:Are you against abortions when necessary to save the life of the mother? If so, then from your perspective this is a valid argument. If not... I think extreme psychological anguish also constitutes a health risk to the mother.
Can you think of any other situations where you think it's OK to kill an innocent person in order to avoid psychological trauma inflicted by a third party?
quote:Saying that I'm not sure that the differences between the two justifies taking the life of an innocent is not the same thing as saying that I cannot see any differences between the two.
If you don't see the difference between the trauma of childbearing/childbirth for a woman who has been raped, and for a woman who hasn't.