[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Not just smoking joints and giving birth to retarded opinions. [/quote]
Don’t be so hard on yourself. You could attempt an actual argument.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It is unfortunate.
Instead of picketing clinics and trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, a more pragmatic solution would probably be to support a multi-pronged approach:
A) Sex education for kids, starting before they become sexually mature.
B) Birth control: Education and easy availability. Preaching abstinence, as noble a sentiment as it may be, just doesn’t work on hormone-laden teenagers.
C) Health services for pregnant women. It shouldn’t even be a question of whether you’ve got coverage or not, or of quotas. If you’re pregnant, you get access to prenatal care.
D) Better adoption services: It’s too damn hard to adopt “local” kids, both in Canada and the US. Having to prove that you’re the bestest family ever leads to a lot of parents to adopt from foreign countries, while local kids get lost in the social system.
Adopting those policies would probably go a long way to curb the number of abortions.
You’d have a lot less unwanted pregnancies to start with, because dumb myths as “you can’t get pregnant the first time” or “you can’t get pregnant if you’re having your period” and so on would be dismissed by education. Kids would be more inclined to use protection if it wasn’t so hard to get hold of, etc.
Girls who get pregnant “accidentally” would probably be more inclined to go through the 9 month ordeal (especially the last part) if A) there wasn’t such a social stigma associated with it and B) they knew the kid would be well cared for in a loving family or that C) they’d get financial help if they decide to keep and raise the kid.
Of course, if you’re a cynic, you’ll note that all those policies would cost taxpayers money. Picketing clinics and bitching about RvW is free.
[/quote]
Why would you need all that stuff if there is nothing wrong with aborting the baby? Why not just do what you want and if you get pregnant, just get an abortion. You don’t need to avoid the pregnancy if you can just deal with it later if it happens.
Nope. Not for controlling women. Not for demographics. And, not because of my Religion. Guys, guys, it would serve you better to accept my explanation. I simply object to murdering an innocent human life, and will not leave it as an option. So don’t waste any more of your time trying to ascribe to me motivations I don’t have.
[quote]pat wrote:
On the other hand, I believe my dog and my guinea pigs are aware they exist. They certainly have personality.[/quote]
Maybe your dog. I have guinea pigs and while I love them dearly, they fail the mirror test. They do have distinct “personalities” though.
No, but it does require a minimum of brain activity. Terry Schiavo had been brain dead for what - 15 years? - when they finally let her body die too. I don’t think there was still “a person” there.
We’re preventing a human life no matter where we stop the process. Before the 32nd week, I don’t think the fetus is aware he’s being killed. Passed that, there a small, unlikely chance he might be.
Yes, but that won’t play in your favor. I’ve read biology articles that argued that infanticide up to 5-6 months of age was no different cognitively than flushing out an embryo.
I think it’s around 27, but I don’t consider pain much of a consideration.
He’ll get to feel a lot more pain - both physical and emotional - during 70 to 80 years of life than he’ll ever endure during the abortion.
They could be anaesthetized to death if you’re squeamish about hurting a fetus.
Alive with DNA and meat still includes too many “non-persons”. A human heart kept in a cold box while it’s being flown to a new recipient meets your 3 criteria, yet no one would confuse it with a person.
What about the other aspect of abortion, the “freedom of choice” aspect? I know you’d never want your wife to get an abortion, and neither would I (nor my wife). But I do enjoy the fact that it is our choice to make.
Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous to think that you’re able to decide for each couple what is best for them at that point in time? Aren’t they better informed about their situation and about whether they feel they’re ready for kids or not? Or whether a woman is ready to go through a pregnancy just to put another kid in the system?
The way I see it is:
Abortion = bad thing.
Illegal abortion = worse thing.
In other words, I think society overall is better off when abortions can be obtained legally, than it is when they’re illegal.
[quote]pat wrote:
You are dead fucking wrong here. Control? If I wanted to control women I’d join the Taliban. I actually care about what happens to people. Thats my motivation. It’s not more complicated than that.[/quote]
I wasn’t thinking about you. That’s why I started by mentioning “For at least some.”
Unless you want to argue that “control” over the woman’s body is never an issue for any of the pro-lifers.
[quote]pat wrote:
Why would you need all that stuff if there is nothing wrong with aborting the baby? Why not just do what you want and if you get pregnant, just get an abortion. You don’t need to avoid the pregnancy if you can just deal with it later if it happens.[/quote]
Well, for one thing, abortions are still medical procedures (at least until you can get RU486 from 7-Eleven) and are generally not taken lightly even by those who chose to get them.
Avoiding unwanted pregnancies is better for everyone involved than terminating one.
Look at it this way: if all unwanted pregnancies were avoided through birth control, you could base your vote on an important issue.
See? Even you would profit from my approach.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope. Not for controlling women. Not for demographics. And, not because of my Religion. Guys, guys, it would serve you better to accept my explanation. I simply object to murdering an innocent human life, and will not leave it as an option. So don’t waste any more of your time trying to ascribe to me motivations I don’t have. [/quote]
Well, I wasn’t thinking about you either, but you guys are starting to protest a bit too much…
There are tons of ways people can die.
A lot of people die each year from getting shot, yet you don’t support gun control… car accidents claim thousands of lives; do you support mandatory speed-limiters and built-in breathalyzers in cars?
Do you oppose wars of aggression on the account of the number of innocent civilians who will become collateral damage?
Do you oppose the death penalty in all instances?
I think Varq’s point about “why the unborn?” stands unchallenged. Why care so much about unborn lives; yet much less about the born and living?
I’m sure you’ll explain that you don’t support gun control, mandatory controlling devices, etc. because it’s better to be free than nannied to death by the government. Why then, in the case of abortion, is the freedom of choice of the mother not “above” considerations for the life of the fetus? In all other instances, you choose more freedom and liberty, even if the statistics predict that they’re will be a cost in human life each year.
Why is that situation - the only one who can never apply directly to you - different?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Nope. Not for controlling women. Not for demographics. And, not because of my Religion. Guys, guys, it would serve you better to accept my explanation. I simply object to murdering an innocent human life, and will not leave it as an option. So don’t waste any more of your time trying to ascribe to me motivations I don’t have.
Well, I wasn’t thinking about you either, but you guys are starting to protest a bit too much…
There are tons of ways people can die.
A lot of people die each year from getting shot, yet you don’t support gun control… car accidents claim thousands of lives; do you support mandatory speed-limiters and built-in breathalyzers in cars?
Do you oppose wars of aggression on the account of the number of innocent civilians who will become collateral damage?
Do you oppose the death penalty in all instances?
I think Varq’s point about “why the unborn?” stands unchallenged. Why care so much about unborn lives; yet much less about the born and living?
I’m sure you’ll explain that you don’t support gun control, mandatory controlling devices, etc. because it’s better to be free than nannied to death by the government. Why then, in the case of abortion, is the freedom of choice of the mother not “above” considerations for the life of the fetus? In all other instances, you choose more freedom and liberty, even if the statistics predict that they’re will be a cost in human life each year.
Why is that situation - the only one who can never apply directly to you - different?
[/quote]
You may have not see it, but I’ve admitted on this here board that I’d fallen well short of abiding by a theory of “Just War.” You’ll find that I’m now arguing on the side of non-interventionism and I will continue to do so.
Gun control is easy. I will no more argue for gun control, than I will argue for government control of who may or may not have sex. I won’t argue for licensing reproductive rights either. Which by that, I mean to say I would never support mandates for birth-control implants for the poor, or something of that nature.
In the end, this argument attempts to tie in big government, to the simple act of oppossing the delilberate and targeted destruction of an innocent human life.
Oh, and no, you’ll find my stance on the death penatly in a thread not too far gone. But, I’ll spare you from having to look it up. I don’t support the death penatly. We are capable of keeping criminals locked up for enternity if need be. And we have more room, and less cost, to do so if we’d end the drug war, by the way.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You may have not see it, but I’ve admitted on this here board that I’d fallen well short of abiding by a theory of “Just War.” You’ll find that I’m now arguing on the side of non-interventionism and I will continue to do so.[/quote]
Good man.
You won’t force them to use birth control, but you’ll force them to carry the baby to term if they get pregnant?
If you’re going to force either issue, it would seem to me that mandatory birth control would be the lesser evil here.
It’s not like we’re advocating permanent sterilization…
It eventually ties in with government at any rate, since making abortion illegal requires some authority to enforce penalties for breaking the law. You’re not proposing private lynch mobs, are you?
The fact remains that most anti-abortionists are either religious, men or housewives with no career other than popping out a few every once in a while.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope. Not for controlling women. Not for demographics. And, not because of my Religion. Guys, guys, it would serve you better to accept my explanation. I simply object to murdering an innocent human life, and will not leave it as an option. So don’t waste any more of your time trying to ascribe to me motivations I don’t have. [/quote]
Ditto. I don’t think I have been vague in my assertions. I have said exactly what I mean.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The fact remains that most anti-abortionists are either religious, men or housewives with no career other than popping out a few every once in a while.[/quote]
That is about 75% of the population.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Yet the self is there. Being useful and fully functional is not a necessary component of being a person.
No, but it does require a minimum of brain activity. Terry Schiavo had been brain dead for what - 15 years? - when they finally let her body die too. I don’t think there was still “a person” there.
[/quote]
She had a functioning brain stem…Which is the bare minimum brain activity…But yes I agree her meat bag was alive but she wasn’t in it.
I would agree with those articles.
Uh, if you had to anesthetized it as it feeling pain that the host cannot feel, would you not consider that an autonomous being and not an extension of the host at that point?
Well, it’s not perfect. I have to think on it some more. What I am not sure of is whether a human body part contains the complete DNA of the entire person or is some DNA, not related to the part in question, left out of a particular part. I guess I can look that up when I have some time to do so.
My empirical strategy is quite new, I’ll have to work on it.
If by some miracle or some conclusive science convinces me that aborting a baby is not the taking of a human life, then by God have at it. Hell, I’ll stuff a few and hang them on my wall for decorations.
As long as I believe it to be killing, then I don’t think a person has the right to take the life of another person. Whether that person is in another or not. I don’t think taking a human life is a choice.
If I thought it to be simply an elective procedure then I wouldn’t give a damn.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Why would you need all that stuff if there is nothing wrong with aborting the baby? Why not just do what you want and if you get pregnant, just get an abortion. You don’t need to avoid the pregnancy if you can just deal with it later if it happens.
Well, for one thing, abortions are still medical procedures (at least until you can get RU486 from 7-Eleven) and are generally not taken lightly even by those who chose to get them.
Avoiding unwanted pregnancies is better for everyone involved than terminating one.
Look at it this way: if all unwanted pregnancies were avoided through birth control, you could base your vote on an important issue.
See? Even you would profit from my approach.
[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with your approach. Anything to reduce or desist the action is a good thing actually. If abortion was legal and very few people had them, then it would be a much smaller a object on my radar.
I think attacking the legal aspect would reduce the numbers greatly. But the reason I want to change it legally is simple.
Here is the ways I see it:
Killing a person is illegal.
Abortion is killing a person.
Therefore abortion should be illegal.
Even Jane Row wants to over turn Roe v. Wade. She’s on Wade’s side now. She totally flipped sides, her name is Norma McCorvey. I met her once. Smoked a cigarette with her and shot the shit with her after her pro-life talk. Her story is quite interesting. Needless to say, as she expresses, she is full of regret, but she is trying to undo some of the damage. I have read recently that she is trying to get Row v. Wade re heard. Unsuccessful so far, but if anybody could reopen that case, it would be her.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Well, I wasn’t thinking about you either, but you guys are starting to protest a bit too much…
[/quote]
Well in fairness to Sloth and I, we had no way of knowing that. But you have a point that there are some people in the pro-life movement that are flat fucking kooks. They use the stance to act like assholes. I don’t like those people. They hurt the cause.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The fact remains that most anti-abortionists are either religious, men or housewives with no career other than popping out a few every once in a while.[/quote]
And this fact is completely irrelevent, even if it were completely true.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You may have not see it, but I’ve admitted on this here board that I’d fallen well short of abiding by a theory of “Just War.” You’ll find that I’m now arguing on the side of non-interventionism and I will continue to do so.
Good man.
Gun control is easy. I will no more argue for gun control, than I will argue for government control of who may or may not have sex. I won’t argue for licensing reproductive rights either. Which by that, I mean to say I would never support mandates for birth-control implants for the poor, or something of that nature.
You won’t force them to use birth control, but you’ll force them to carry the baby to term if they get pregnant?
If you’re going to force either issue, it would seem to me that mandatory birth control would be the lesser evil here.
It’s not like we’re advocating permanent sterilization…
In the end, this argument attempts to tie in big government, to the simple act of oppossing the delilberate and targeted destruction of an innocent human life.
It eventually ties in with government at any rate, since making abortion illegal requires some authority to enforce penalties for breaking the law. You’re not proposing private lynch mobs, are you?
[/quote]
Pookie. You’ve been a level headed participant, so don’t think I’m just dismissing you. However, we could debate the details from here to eternity, and we both know it. But, there is a fundamental issue that I won’t overlook in considering any side issues.
The fundamental issue is the deliberate (i.e. pursposeful, premeditated, and conscious) taking of a the most innocent of human life. That’s the part I’m not going to be argued past, because there is no justification for such an act.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The fact remains that most anti-abortionists are either religious, men or housewives with no career other than popping out a few every once in a while.[/quote]
Well, true blue atheists are a minority, so it can’t be helped. However, there are secular and atheist groups growing up around a pro-life platform. Opposition to killing isn’t exactly restricted to the religious. And why in the world would you belittle housewives? No career? Maybe not, but they carry out perhaps the most essential role in society.
[quote]pat wrote:
Yes, but that won’t play in your favor. I’ve read biology articles that argued that infanticide up to 5-6 months of age was no different cognitively than flushing out an embryo.
I would agree with those articles.[/quote]
Well, you shouldn’t because they weren’t arguing that an embryo is “a person” as much as they were “a young infant” is still not a person.
Autonomous? Well, it can’t live on it’s own, so it’s clearly not autonomous at that point. The relationship is properly described as “parasitic” even if you don’t like the term. What little benefits there might be to being pregnant are probably too few to term it symbiotic.
At no point during the pregnancy would I consider the growing fetus as “an extension” of the host. The host is not growing a new arm, he’s growing a new human with his own unique DNA.
Each and every cell contains the whole DNA structure.
That’s why they could clone Dolly the sheep from a cell taken from her breasts. (Hence the name “Dolly”).
Well, is all human life of equal worth in your eyes? If I argue that the life of an embryo or a pre-3rd trimester fetus is basically worthless compared to the life of a born human, how’s that going to fly?
You’re aware that nature itself flushes away about 60% of embryos? Surely that holocaust cause no one any concern. We’re not moving Earth and Sky trying to genetically modify ourselves to preserve 100% of embryos…
They tell me it would do much to improve the place. But you now how “they” are.
A) A couple can choose to give life to a new person.
B) They can also choose not to give life to a new person by using birth control.
C) If they give life unwillingly, they can change their minds and take it away.
How is the end result from B any different from C? How can you reconcile supporting B and opposing C?