Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   anti-abortion folks still get abortions
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 241 of 301 (300408)
04-02-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
04-02-2006 8:47 PM


done
Since when is it a "saying"? And what do you claim it describes?
IT is a very common saying. In the context I used it, it meant what I meant it to mean. You decided to pick it apart. Why not pick apart brennas comments about we chose not to lay eggs?
The rest is just BS, I am done, I have made my point, like it or leave it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2006 8:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by MangyTiger, posted 04-02-2006 10:44 PM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 301 (300409)
04-02-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by riVeRraT
04-02-2006 10:19 PM


Re: i think it's time to wrap it up
So, what you're saying is, you don't see a fundamental difference between this:
And these?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2006 10:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by rgb, posted 04-03-2006 1:33 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 243 of 301 (300410)
04-02-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
04-02-2006 10:27 PM


Will to survive
quote:
Since when is it a "saying"? And what do you claim it describes?
IT is a very common saying.
Without wishing to be pedantic I think it's more of a phrase rather than a saying.
A saying is something like 'The early bird catches the worm' or 'A watched pot never boils'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2006 10:27 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Firebird
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 301 (300425)
04-02-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by riVeRraT
03-31-2006 7:37 AM


Re: Responsibility
Hi again RiVeRrat,
The fact that a fetus keeps growing, unless you disturb it, is proof positive that it has a will to survive.
I’ll leave this alone as it has already been addressed.
I only said that to be realistic. I really do not trust medicine, or the doctors. They have screwed me up too many times. But they have also saved me. It's the best we got, and we have to go with it.
As stated in my previous post, I would certainly take medical advice into account. I would not blindly follow it, because it is fallible and not the “whole picture” - there are other factors to be considered.
depression is not life threatening, and treatable.
Depression is life threatening; talk to someone who was a friend or relative of a suicide! Treatment is available, but success is not guaranteed. That doesn’t mean that I believe that the possibility of depression should automatically lead to a termination. The issues are, as you agreed, complex.
Your confusing to ideas there. If you make an honest mistake it is not murder. The fact remains that some pregnancies pose a risk to the mother, or the baby. We do our best at trying to prevent those bad things from happening.
A fetus terminated by “honest mistake”, or to reduce a risk, is just as dead as one terminated for the most selfish of reasons.
What your saying is that medicine has no right to get involved at all. I do not agree with that.
I didn’t say that; I said that medical advice should be taken into account.
We have brains. Whether it's from God or not, we should be using them.
We agree again!
All the same, I think I understand your position; please let me know if not. You believe that legislation to prevent legal abortions except on medical grounds would prevent a lot of “selfish” abortions, and save a lot of fetuses.
My difficulties with this are:
1. abortions will go “underground” again, and there will be deaths from infections, inadequate follow-up treatment etc.
2. poor people will be disproportionally disadvantaged; the wealthy will go to where the procedure is legal, or “buy” the required medical advice.
3. More children will be born to parents who do not want them, a horrible way to begin life
I will continue to use my brain, and make my own decisions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by riVeRraT, posted 03-31-2006 7:37 AM riVeRraT has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 301 (300465)
04-03-2006 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
04-02-2006 10:28 PM


Re: i think it's time to wrap it up
Crashfrog, sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation, but I have to make a comment.
I do not see a difference between this
and
this
The lines aren't always as clear as you make it out to be.
This message has been edited by rgb, 04-03-2006 01:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2006 10:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2006 9:26 AM rgb has not replied
 Message 249 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 9:36 AM rgb has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 301 (300467)
04-03-2006 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-23-2006 4:41 PM


Schraf, forgive me if the following point has been addressed.
What this article does is point out something that is somewhat obvious. Every group and everyone is a hypocrit to some degree or other. How often do christians refer to other religions as "superstition" and then turn around and believe in an immaterial, intangible all-powerful being? How often do atheists criticize religious people for believing something without evidence and then turn around and follow their "gut feelings"? How often do scientists criticize the common man for not having enough understanding of a scientific subject he is talking about and then turn around and have their own opinion on a subject that is not their fields of expertise? How often do the Bush supporters accuse the "other side" of being commie bastards and then turn around and cash in their social security checks?
My "gut feeling" is that this thread is meant to point out (or at least imply) the blunt hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd. What I really see is that the article does little more than to tell us that some, probably very few, individuals who are pro-life are also unreasonable and self-deluding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-23-2006 4:41 PM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 247 of 301 (300489)
04-03-2006 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by riVeRraT
04-02-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Responsibility
I deserve it, in my own opinion. I would spend time in jail gladly to set an example. I am a person of integrety, and principal.
You could also make news. Go out now and start a trend. I can't wait to see it on the news.
because I lived in a society that accepted abortions,
Uhoh... blame society? Well actually society was not "accepting" of abortion. I though AAs point out that it was a court that overthrew the will of the public on this issue.
As it is many pro choicers do not necessarily recommend abortion. They just weren't going to punish you... big difference.
And because abortion was legal, it just helped me along in doing it, instead of detering me.
Wait a minute, you can't help doing something unless there are laws which deter you?
So I did nothing wrong, and I deserve no punishment. If you wish to punish someone for my abortion, you can punish the partys involved in making it legal, they are the ultimate ones liable.
Oh no it is! You've turned into a bleeding heart blame society liberal! Heheheh.
In any case, if because it was legal you did no wrong, then the people today are doing no wrong and it never will be. So I guess its not that bad after all huh?
And now people can blame you for putting money in the abortionists' pockets to keep them going. As well as not getting yourself punished as you should be to be a deterrent for others.
Of course it would.
Let me explain something which has already been explained: those wanting to have abortions are not deterred by laws against abortion. If they really want to then they will go and try to have one. The laws may deter some people squeamish about having to go the back alley route, but not those determined to end a pregnancy.
I guess what we'd be hearing if laws had been in place is your whining that we need stiffer laws about pregnant women being allowed to go to Mexico, because they might have abortions. And to blame everyone else for encouraging you to encourage your gf to go to Mexico to have it done, because they didn't pass such laws.
Because I didn't legalize it.
Will that be a good enough answer when you meet God? Humans could legalize murder for fun in the coloseum, would that make your doing it less culpable to morality and God?
Oh yeah, I guess this shoots down any further appeals you might make to absolute morality.

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2006 6:39 PM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 301 (300530)
04-03-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by rgb
04-03-2006 1:33 AM


Re: i think it's time to wrap it up
The lines aren't always as clear as you make it out to be.
Well, the line seems pretty clear to me - one of those organisms is a being entirely capable of autonomous body function, and the other one is entirely dependant on another human being for functions as simple as digestion and respiration.
One of those beings was allowed the use of a uterus for gestation with the expressed permission of the uterus's owner; the other may not have recieved that permission.
Anyway I think you'll find that in my example, the lines are fairly clear, so I'd still like RR to answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by rgb, posted 04-03-2006 1:33 AM rgb has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (300534)
04-03-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by rgb
04-03-2006 1:33 AM


Maybe you could expand a little on what you think the essential differences should be, and the point out how your two examples lack this difference.
Edited for clarity.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-Apr-2006 01:37 PM

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by rgb, posted 04-03-2006 1:33 AM rgb has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 250 of 301 (300543)
04-03-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
04-02-2006 10:28 PM


By request, I want out.
No, there is no fundamental difference between the 2.
They both rely on their mother for survival.
Why not axe the kids head off, because he can't survive on his own?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2006 10:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 04-03-2006 10:19 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2006 11:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 251 of 301 (300545)
04-03-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 10:12 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Are you sure that you don't want to research that answer a little more before saying that there is no difference between the upper and lower photos?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:25 AM jar has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 252 of 301 (300548)
04-03-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by jar
04-03-2006 10:19 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Are you sure that you don't want to research that answer a little more before saying that there is no difference between the upper and lower photos?
I didn't say there was no difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 04-03-2006 10:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 04-03-2006 10:27 AM riVeRraT has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 253 of 301 (300549)
04-03-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 10:25 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Even adding the qualifier "No fundamental Difference" makes little difference in this case. Just wanted to suggest that you consider before you answer to make sure that is actually what you meant to say.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:46 AM jar has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 254 of 301 (300558)
04-03-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by jar
04-03-2006 10:27 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
I explained the fundemental similarity I was talking about.
You just took it out of context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 04-03-2006 10:27 AM jar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 255 of 301 (300571)
04-03-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 10:12 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
No, there is no fundamental difference between the 2.
Ah, well, there is actually a considerable fundamental difference - the two bottom pictures are fetal Rattus norvegicus, the common laboratory rat, as opposed to the juvenile Homo sapiens represented in my topmost picture. Two different species. I'd say that's a pretty fundamental difference.
Which really gets to the heart of the thing. You're trying to ascribe full humanity, full independance, and a considerably greater degree of body autonomy than you would grant to its female host to beings that so fundamentally lack any recognizable humanity that you couldn't even tell them apart, at that stage, from lab rats regularly vivisected for the most trivial of scientific or educational purposes.
By failing to recognize humanity, or the lack of it, you've amply demonstrated the gaping hole in the middle of the pro-life position. Fetuses aren't people. You demonstrated that yourself, just now, when you couldn't tell the difference between a human fetus and a rat fetus. They don't have a claim on life. They certainly don't have a claim on a woman's organs. They're disposable non-entities who inhabit a woman's uterus soley at her discretion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 10:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 4:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024