Abortion Survey...

[Severian]

I think my change of opinion has partly come about through the realization that pregnancy is really not that bad. So the woman has a few months of discomfort - big deal! It is not like you are condemning her to 20 years in prison. For that matter many countries still have military service; I would rather be pregnant than do a year of military service, but we don't regard military service as an abuse of our rights.

 

I think the other contributing factor to my change of heart is in having a child of my own. The miracle of childbirth was amazing and I couldn't imagine a world without my daughter in it. Every child in the world is a gift we should embrace.

[DrDNA]

Actually, it's not an appeal at all, and it's incredibly relevant. Let me explain why.

 

When asked, those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child.

 

If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed.

 

If they were sincere (or, perhaps, to be fair, if they weren't so self-deluded) in their statements, they'd be pushing hard on other issues as well... other issues that would have signifanct impact on the welfare of the child... in my example, free healthcare for the pregnant female and children under 10.

 

They are not. Those who wish to make it illegal for a woman to make this choice herself say NOTHING about providing her healthcare, and her children healthcare. They say NOTHING about other means of protection.

 

The reason I have made this point is because it shows how internally inconsistent their position is (when they argue that it's not about their morality, but that it's about protection and well-being).

 

This supports my contention that it's about legislating their personal morality, and not about a simple desire to protect the child.

 

 

 

 

 

Since when do you have the authority or the right to put her under guard for engaging in (yep, you guessed it) actions you just don't agree with? When did it become your decision? It's her baby, not yours, and the point applies to abortion as well.

 

To my knowledge, you are the only one that has mentioned neonatal health care (at least recently) in this forum. So how could anyone poo poo it?

 

You appear to be closing your eyes and throwing hand grenades in all directions. For example, you are making an assumption (just perhaps it is false?) that all anti abortion people are also anti some un-named or non existent government funded or gov subsidized neonatal health care policy that may or may not currently exist or that may have never even been proposed people.

 

Please tell me about this nebulis health care plan that they are all against.

 

Whoever "they" are, they must be awful because it appears from what you have said that they want babies to be born with preventable deformitites and illnesses and to suffer.

"They" sound like a bunch of jerks:-)

[iNow]

Support your position as to why you wish to legislate your morality. I find it apparent that you cannot since you instead choose to attack my example which framed the issue as it stands.

 

It's currently legal.

 

You wish to make it illegal, consequently passing into legislation your personal morality.

 

The onus is on you to show the rest of us why that should be allowed to happen.

[ParanoiA]

I think my change of opinion has partly come about through the realization that pregnancy is really not that bad. So the woman has a few months of discomfort - big deal! It is not like you are condemning her to 20 years in prison. For that matter many countries still have military service; I would rather be pregnant than do a year of military service, but we don't regard military service as an abuse of our rights.

 

We don't obligate military service either, it's a choice. At least here in the US. So since you advocate forced pregnancy, how long until you advocate forced insemination? It's interesting watching folks rationalize violating another human being that way. How about forced labor, aka slavery?

 

I think the other contributing factor to my change of heart is in having a child of my own. The miracle of childbirth was amazing and I couldn't imagine a world without my daughter in it. Every child in the world is a gift we should embrace.

 

Oh, the ole good intentions excuse. 'I love childbirth so everyone should love childbirth, even if it means putting them in jail, death, rape'.

 

Yes, childbirth is miraculous and I'll never forget those moments. The feeling you get as you realize you really are a dad, that what you're holding is instantly the most important thing in your life.

 

And I have no right to force everyone else to appreciate it too. I can and maybe should persuade them, but their personal soveriegnty trumps any new life form growing inside them. And I see evil in violating a woman's body.

 

You cannot acheive good by evil means.

[DrDNA]

Support your position as to why you wish to legislate your morality. I find it apparent that you cannot since you instead choose to attack my example which framed the issue as it stands.

 

It's currently legal.

 

You wish to make it illegal, consequently passing into legislation your personal morality.

 

The onus is on you to show the rest of us why that should be allowed to happen.

 

It framed what issue?

 

Please explain how your points re health care relate to abortion. I really do not get it. Are saying that we don't have "free" health care for children and pregnant women, therefore we should have abortion? Because it looks like you are.

 

You cannot acheive good by evil means.

 

That's a new one. Trying to protect unborn children is evil.

[Severian]

We don't obligate military service either, it's a choice. At least here in the US.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't notice the stipulation in the original post that we should only discuss laws in the US.

 

So since you advocate forced pregnancy, how long until you advocate forced insemination?

 

I don't advocate forced pregnancy.

 

It's interesting watching folks rationalize violating another human being that way. How about forced labor, aka slavery?

Forced labour is fine in my view. If, for example, someone breaks the law, they may have to do some community service. That is forced labour, but you probably don't have a problem with it.

 

And we don't need an illegal act to force labour. For example, all self employed people have to fill in their tax forms. People whose dogs shit in the park have to pick it up. Would you regard these as unconstitutional?

 

People have to do things they don't like to do all the time - especially if they are a consequence of their actions.

 

Oh, the ole good intentions excuse. 'I love childbirth so everyone should love childbirth, even if it means putting them in jail, death, rape'.

 

Is that straw coming out of your ears? I never once suggested that people had to like being pregnant, and I certainly never suggested that they be sent to jail, put to death or raped if they didn't.

 

And I have no right to force everyone else to appreciate it too.

 

Why would I want to?

 

And I see evil in violating a woman's body.

 

So do I. I hope you weren't planning to. And I also hope that you weren't suggesting that an unborn baby is 'violating' its mother's body by existing.

[DrDNA]

And I have no right to force everyone else to appreciate it too. I can and maybe should persuade them, but their personal soveriegnty trumps any new life form growing inside them.

Your neighbor's sovereignty does not prevent child protective services from going in and taking children away from harmful and abusive environments, and yet you have no problem with it.

 

 

 

 

And I see evil in violating a woman's body.

And I see pure evil in killing a child, that just so happens to reside inside someone else, for convenience.

 

You know unless you are a complete anarchist you don't have much of an ideological leg to stand on. You willingly give up your rights to your body every day. You can't get medications (even birth control pills) without a Dr's perscription. We have legislation and the DEA to fight the "war on drugs". You will be jailed for illicit substance possession. It is illegal to commit suicide.

How come?

[iNow]

It framed what issue?

 

Please explain how your points re health care relate to abortion. I really do not get it.

 

Then you are either:

1) Not paying attention to anything I've said in this thread

2) Intentionally ignoring the points I've raised, or

3) You're completely daft.

[ParanoiA]

I'm sorry. I didn't notice the stipulation in the original post that we should only discuss laws in the US.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that my reply implied such silliness. Seemed rather obvious to me that I was clarifying my ignorance beyond my shoreline.

 

I don't advocate forced pregnancy.

 

That's the only option if you're advocating restricting abortion. If you don't allow them to terminate their pregnancy, then you're forcing them to be pregnant.

 

Forced labour is fine in my view. If, for example, someone breaks the law, they may have to do some community service. That is forced labour, but you probably don't have a problem with it.

 

No I don't.

 

And we don't need an illegal act to force labour. For example, all self employed people have to fill in their tax forms. People whose dogs shit in the park have to pick it up. Would you regard these as unconstitutional?

 

No since labor is not forced. The law doesn't say that people have to pick up their dog's shit - it says that their dog's shit is not allowed to be on the ground at the park. I can comply with that without lifting a finger.

 

People have to do things they don't like to do all the time - especially if they are a consequence of their actions.

 

Yeah, like abortions. Nobody likes to do that, yet they still deal with the consequence. I don't know anybody who likes abortions or uses them for a contraceptive solution. I know alot of morality elites who claim so though.

 

So do I. I hope you weren't planning to. And I also hope that you weren't suggesting that an unborn baby is 'violating' its mother's body by existing.

 

No, I was suggesting that to enforce anti-abortion requires violating a woman's body.

[john5746]

Every child in the world is a gift we should embrace.

 

Every child of our own in the world is a gift we embrace.

 

That's how 99% of the people operate anyway. We will give our wealth, our lives, even other's lives for our children. But other children? That is their parent's responsibility. So, make the women have the child, then forget about them. Having a child was a great thing for me in my white bread world, so it must be a great thing for everyone else as well.

[DrDNA]

Then you are either:

1) Not paying attention to anything I've said in this thread

2) Intentionally ignoring the points I've raised, or

3) You're completely daft.

 

You are free to take your pick.

 

However it does not change the fact that your points about health care do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to substantiate your position on abortion. And you are either unwilling or unable to explain how they might.

[ParanoiA]

Your neighbor's sovereignty does not prevent child protective services from going in and taking children away from harmful and abusive environments, and yet you have no problem with it.

 

Right, and the children don't live inside their freaking bodies. If they did, then I would certainly never advocate violating their bodies to get them - like you and Severian seem to be cool with.

 

And I see pure evil in killing a child, that just so happens to reside inside someone else, for convenience.

 

"for convenience" is a subjective value judgement. If it wasn't "convenient" would you suddenly be all for it?

 

So you have no issue forcing a woman to hike up her skirt and invite strangers to poke and prod her body and endure pain the likes of which no man could handle - otherwise known as assault - and you don't think that's evil?

 

You know unless you are a complete anarchist you don't have much of an ideological leg to stand on. You willingly give up your rights to your body every day. You can't get medications (even birth control pills) without a Dr's perscription. We have legislation and the DEA to fight the "war on drugs". You will be jailed for illicit substance possession. It is illegal to commit suicide.

How come?

 

I don't have to be a complete anarchist to reject the idea of giving up our rights to our body the way we have in this country. I don't believe you have a right to force, nor deny anything I want to do to myself, or injest in myself. The original constitution wasn't complete anarchy, and none of what you outline above was illegal then. (not that I'm advocating a return to the original constitution, just pointing out the fact)

 

But, we're just re-arguing points we've already agreed to disagree on. I do appreciate where you're coming from, and knowing some of your politics, it's obviously thought out and consistent with your principles. They just differ from mine.

[iNow]

You are free to take your pick.

Well, having read your other posts here, I really don't think you're daft. You are quite bright, and you make me laugh often. You're someone I'd easily put back a few beers with. So, I'll say it's not #3.

 

I'm inclined to think that you just haven't been reading my posts that closely. If I were to guess, I'd say that you just get the tone ("he disagrees wiht me") then move on to your own post ("here's what I think.")

 

I don't really know, though. Maybe you are daft.

 

 

However it does not change the fact that your points about health care do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to substantiate your position on abortion. And you are either unwilling or unable to explain how they might.

 

I tried to explain why I brought this into the discussion at post #225, so unwilling clearly isn't the case. I also am completely able, and if I didn't do well enough in post #225 and all of those other posts which came before it, then I ask for you to request clarification on what I've stated already... something specific if possible.

 

My basic position in my approach to you and other pro-lifers is that it's already legal, and you should not be allowed to make it illegal simply because it clashes with your personal morality.

 

What about that do you need me to further substantiate? Again, you're the one trying to change the laws as they exist, so technically the onus is on you to substantiate YOUR position.

 

However, if you need me to clarify further, please ask a more specific question of me, and I will gladly address it. As I said, I already spent some time explaining in post #225 why I used the issue of healthcare as an example to frame the internal inconsistency of the pro-lifers position. It's because those who advocate the removal of the right to choose claim that:

 

It is about protecting the most helpless and most innocent from warrantless harm.

 

 

I call bullshit. I say, that's how it's rationalized in their own head's, but when viewed from an outside observer, it's about legislating their personal morality on others.

[DrDNA]

OK post 225 again:

When asked, those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child.

 

If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed.

 

If they were sincere (or, perhaps, to be fair, if they weren't so self-deluded) in their statements, they'd be pushing hard on other issues as well... other issues that would have signifanct impact on the welfare of the child... in my example, free healthcare for the pregnant female and children under 10.

 

They are not. Those who wish to make it illegal for a woman to make this choice herself say NOTHING about providing her healthcare, and her children healthcare. They say NOTHING about other means of protection.

 

The reason I have made this point is because it shows how internally inconsistent their position is (when they argue that it's not about their morality, but that it's about protection and well-being).

 

This supports my contention that it's about legislating their personal morality, and not about a simple desire to protect the child.

 

Again. This does not have ANY relevance to the abortion debat.

 

Firstly, whether you believe it bullshit or not, just because someone wishes to protect an unborn child from harm does not automatically mean that they must be for or be against some government welfare/healthcare/etc program. I believe that YOU are guilty of imposing your moral standard on someone else in this case.

 

Furthermore, what planet am I on? When someone calls the police or child protective services because their neighbor is abusing their children, is it expected that they will pay for the continued welfare of those children out of their own pockets???

I shouldn't call child protective services because I may be unwilling to pay for the welfare of the children? Please. This is the logic you are using and it is dead wrong. Do you see it now? They are two separate issues and you have failed to make any connection.

 

And again, as I stated before. You are making a FALSE assumption that everyone that is against abortion ("they", the evil ones, those jerks that have the tamarity to try and force their own personal moralities on innocent pregnant women) is also against govt funded (aka "free") neonatal and child health care. I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty that is not the case.

[iNow]

Firstly, whether you believe it bullshit or not, just because someone wishes to protect an unborn child from harm does not automatically mean that they must be for or be against some government welfare/healthcare/etc program.

That's not the point I was trying to make. I am saying that your claim that it's about protecting the collection of undeveloped cells does not hold water. You are trying to legislate your morality.

 

 

Furthermore, what planet am I on? When someone calls the police or child protective services because their neighbor is abusing their children...

That child has been born already. Different story. We're talking about a collection of undeveloped cells.

 

 

I shouldn't call child protective services because I may be unwilling to pay for the welfare of the children? Please.

I never said you were unwilling. I said that the fact that you and other pro-lifers limit your view of "protecting the child" to only attempting to legislate your morality and remove the choice of abortion shows that your comments about it being "to protect the child" are not internally consistent.

 

 

You are making a FALSE assumption that everyone that is against abortion ("they", the evil ones, those jerks that have the tamarity to try and force their own personal moralities on innocent pregnant women) is also against govt funded (aka "free") neonatal and child health care.

Your point is completely moot, because you've missed mine.

[DrDNA]

That's not the point I was trying to make. I am saying that your claim that it's about protecting the collection of undeveloped cells does not hold water. You are trying to legislate your morality.

 

That child has been born already. Different story. We're talking about a collection of undeveloped cells.

 

While we are on the irrelevant subject that you are so hung up on (health care for neonats and children lucky enough to be outside the womb), why aren't all the pro choice people calling for psychological and psychiatric assistance for all of the women (and others that might be involved) that have undergone abortions and are now suffering from pyschological issues as a consequence. Believe me, I know more women than I have fingers (I would probably have to take my shoes off) that suffer from clinical depression, PTSS, self anger, severe regret, guilt, shame, and the thought of what might have been...as a direct consequence of having abortions....even decades ago. Abortion can be devistating pyschologically...oh, but I forgot, it's just a choice.

 

Please get it out of your head that someone (such as those evil antiabortionists) is trying to impose an arbitrary personal morality on innocent pregant victims. It ain't so.

You sound like NOW, not iNOW.

The ones unlucky enough not to have passed through a birth canal yet are the victims here.

 

Murder is not personal morality, it is accepted universally in nearly every culture, theology (including no theology), nation, village, etc as being morally, ethically, and legally wrong.

 

To you it is a collection of undeveloped cells ...perhaps a fingernail to be discarded without a second thought as someone once put it to me (how sad is that). But to me, to many others, it is a hell of a lot more than that. And until someone proves to me that life does not begin until a baby goes through a birth canal and/or just when a pregnant woman wishes for it to be born, at the very least I shall err on the side of caution. That is not personal morality my friend.

 

Baby goes through birth canal = life.

Baby doesn't go through birth canal = no life (no way)

 

I have a baby inside me = oh joy, life.

I have a "fingernail" inside me; yuck, I want it out = no life (no way)

 

Our thoughts and emotions are largely the result of neurons in particular areas of the brain firing in patterns. So does a fetus' or an embryo's life exisit or not exist only when certain neurons in a pregnant woman's brain fire in a certain pattern?

[iNow]

why aren't all the pro choice people calling for...

We're not the ones trying to change the law.

 

 

To you it is a collection of undeveloped cells ...perhaps a fingernail to be discarded without a second thought as someone once put it to me (how sad is that). But to me, to many others, it is a hell of a lot more than that.

Hence my comments about you attempting to legislate your personal (subjective) morality.

 

 

Baby goes through birth canal = life.

Baby doesn't go through birth canal = no life (no way)

I wasn't going to touch this, and will only say this is a pretty significant misrepresentation of my stance.

 

So... at what point is it life? Should I not be allowed to masturbate and flush the sperm down the shower drain? Is it the instantaneous moment where the sperm hits the egg, or only after it's penetrated it? Is it only after the first cell divides, or is it after some cascade of cell division that it becomes the purview of the government?

 

 

Why are you getting so emotional? I've been very calm and consistent in my statements, and you are verging on the edge of feces throwing with your completely tangential comments, misrepresentations of my stance, and the way your posts are becoming more and more directed at me instead of the issue under discussion...

[DrDNA]

We're not the ones trying to change the law.

 

 

That's funny. I thought it was about a particular court's interpretation of the law. Which might change btw (we can only hope and pray).

 

 

So... at what point is it life? Should I not be allowed to masturbate and flush the sperm down the shower drain?

Dear Lord, that's way too graphic. How can I erase this from my memory?

 

 

Is it the instantaneous moment where the sperm hits the egg, or only after it's penetrated it? Is it only after the first cell divides, or is it after some cascade of cell division that it becomes the purview of the government?

We don't know do we....so let's just kill it anyway. Reminds me of kids putting salt on slugs or drying worms on the sidewalk. Pretty sick, except in this case, it is NOT a slug and NOT a worm.

 

 

Why are you getting so emotional? I've been very calm and consistent in my statements, and you are verging on the edge of feces throwing with your completely tangential comments, misrepresentations of my stance, and the way your posts are becoming more and more directed at me instead of the issue under discussion...

 

LOL. Don't worry about me. I'm OK. I have not directed anything personally at you (except the following).

I'm right and you're just hypersensitive and really really wrong.

If I have directed anything at you please show me and I'll apologize.

PS: Calling you out on what you say is not personal.

[iNow]

Okay, Doc. I'm still waiting for you to support your argument. There's a whole lot of rhetoric, a bunch of emotional appeal, and not a lot of substance coming out of you on this issue. I'm really trying here, but you have to as well.

[Severian]

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that my reply implied such silliness. Seemed rather obvious to me that I was clarifying my ignorance beyond my shoreline.

 

No - you were neglecting a valid argument because it does not apply to the US. That is just bad form.

 

That's the only option if you're advocating restricting abortion. If you don't allow them to terminate their pregnancy, then you're forcing them to be pregnant.

 

No-one forced them to get pregnant (leaving rape aside), so no-one is being forced here.

 

No since labor is not forced. The law doesn't say that people have to pick up their dog's shit - it says that their dog's shit is not allowed to be on the ground at the park. I can comply with that without lifting a finger.

 

I think this is quite a nice analogy, because it is your own behaviour causing consequences you need to be held responsible for. You can choose not to walk your dog (or not have one) just as you can choose not to have sex. (Notice you can also avoid getting pregnant by not lifting a "finger".) Both have consequences. If you take your dog for a walk you may be forced to pick up its poo (if a cop spots you, you will be arrested if you don't); if you have sex you may be forced to be pregnant for 9 months.

 

No, I was suggesting that to enforce anti-abortion requires violating a woman's body.

 

This is just daft. How can one violate a woman's body by not doing something? They are in a self-created situation; all an anti-abortion law does is prevent them applying a quick "fix".

[markus.dnd]

whats the big deal about abortion? there is all ready too many humans on earth. so i am person that says "it really does not matter. few humans here or there." yes you all can start shouting now, how mean and evil i am. but what does one abortion mean to country? or 100?

[DrDNA]

Okay, Doc. I'm still waiting for you to support your argument. There's a whole lot of rhetoric, a bunch of emotional appeal, and not a lot of substance coming out of you on this issue. I'm really trying here, but you have to as well.

 

Funny how perception works.....

I was thinking pretty much the same thing about your stance on this issue.

 

whats the big deal about abortion? there is all ready too many humans on earth. so i am person that says "it really does not matter. few humans here or there." yes you all can start shouting now, how mean and evil i am. but what does one abortion mean to country? or 100?

 

 

You might be on to something. But if it is only about population, over population and population control, are we to assume that you don't have much of a problem with murder, war, ethnic cleansing and other forms of genocide either?

[markus.dnd]

No it is not only about population. I mean that controlling, what people do, on bigger and bigger scales does not help to remove the problem itself. but it will cover it up. The problem is that society is not grown up as much as needed for genocides and other such things to stop. And only thing that can be done is just working on education. And so helping society to get more mature.

I myself live using principle " Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. " and it works rather well. So I am just saying that forcing "good" on people does not stop them doing things they think is right(it might be "bad" but still) but showing it to them has more effect. it all takes time. (meanwhile i do not wish to die during a war of some kind i do support antiwar movements just as i like nature and i support green movements. and do not support abortion. i just do not think that abortion should be illegal. Because when people realise it is not very bright thing to do they just don't do it.)

[DrDNA]

Because when people realise it is not very bright thing to do they just don't do it.)

 

Have you seen the Jerry Springer show lately?

[markus.dnd]

Well sadly i don't have much time to wach tv. i usually use time to work on something i love to learn and train.