Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

You're right, you don't deserve that, and I apologize. My emotions got the better of me. I agree to your point about the continuum of choices. A person's choice to have unprotected sex WILL affect later choices, but I think we'll both agree that the choice to have or not have an abortion should still remain available.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-17-2004]

Depending on the Situation, of course... Right?(Just trying to get you view on things ae, although I can probably review messages, a little lazy.)

---

The world is a Ghetto

Since I myself use hyperbole, I feel pretty comfortable letting other people use it too. What can I say? I understood what she meant. I didn't see her absolving women of all responsibility. I saw her making a case for improving the sexual responsibility of men. Somehow everybody's on the same page but you, maybe? I felt that it was covered by my statements. If you're not a spelunker, if you're not a ropemaker, if you don't sell climbing harnesses, your understanding of the mother and her situation will never be closer than second-hand. I'd say that makes your opinion of the situation next to pointless. I certainly wouldn't give you more credence than anybody who had been in the situation, or had trained to be in it. The alternative is people setting policy for other people's bodies without themselves having the body parts in question. Unacceptable.

note: edited out repeat message[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-18-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Of course, that is if murder was morally ok.

---

This is a bit selfserving and not really addressing my point.I am saying that from your metaphysical vantage point you have a legitimate reason to call it murder. But it does require a specific metaphysical belief that many do not share. There is no objective criteria for your positio, or at the very least none capable of showing yours to be "right" as opposed to your opponents.Given that in the US, people are supposed to be free to hold their own metaphysical positions without interference from the government, why does YOURS get to be stamped as superior to others'?While you may feel it is murder, you have to come to the understanding that others really do NOT view it that way. In such a situation, where there are no objective standards to appeal to, is it not best to let personal decisions be made by individuals instead of having a government step in to enforce a singular moral code?I guess, maybe I am asking you to realize that there is more than the life of the fetus at stake in the abortion debate. If we allow your definition to get stamped on others, that will set a very bad precedent.Imagine vegans get some sort of majority and decide that killing animals for food is murder. Do you believe they should be able to impose their view on you? How about a morality group imposing their definition that even the thought of murder is synonymous with murder and so violent video game players are serial killers?

quote:

---

Exceptions can and should be made for such rare cases.

---

This does require a proChoice stance, though it is admittedly limited.

quote:

---

Shouldn't the child be given the most optimistic approach?

---

Do you really believe the government should be forcing you to approach your life decisions according to what the majority wants?Of course my point was that just as you view a fetus as another life, some view it as an extension of their own... are these people not allowed this view and so make their choices carefully?But you do make a point. No one knows the future. They also do not know what a fetus is. Why is it the place of government to make this determination for others, when there are NO objective standards to differentiate the two?

quote:

---

That's like saying its america's army shouldn't it be allowed to attack and murder billions? Yes it is a fantasy, but fantasies can become reality.

---

There is a vast difference between a government actively killing people, and a government not forcing people to bear children which are not desired by the parent.

quote:

---

Be more optimistic. Noone can tell the future, you know?

---

Who is to say choosing not to have a child is the pessimistic choice? No one can tell the future. That is the whole point. By forcing a woman to make a specific choice you are saying the majority has some inkling about reality and the future.

quote:

---

I don't know the answers to these questions, they are obviously unfair, noone can know God and his processes in those ways?

---

Actually they are extremely fair questions. If your sincere answer is that no one can know God and his processes, then that undercuts your own argument. How coud you possibly say that it is murder at all? Your answer would have to be you don't know.Once the argument is advanced that embryos and fetuses are like full human beings, especially because they have a soul, then all the questions pop up.Unless you are arguing that abortion is murder without appealing to an idea that embryos and fetuses are living beings equal to fully grown beings?I am sorry that these questions seem hard. They ARE hard. That's why I have been unable to understand the antiAbortion argument. But they need to be answered to gain some sort of internal consistency.

quote:

---

How can God control a choice? We are the only ones that can help stop this. Jesus would never be born again right? So I don't really see the point in that.

---

Yeah, this one is subtle. Let me try again.It may be true that God lets humans have choice and so does not control everything (though that does undercut statements he is omniscient or omnipotent). Yet a God itself must also have the ability to make its own choices. So if God wants to have Jesus come back, why on earth would he allow people to thwart his plan?Such a vision of God is wholly inconsistent with the God of the Bible, and I would argue inconsistent with the notion of what a God is in general. They are supposed to be powerful and capable of overcoming any challenges humans make to their direct plans... though they may be disappointed with the personal choices humans make that have no bearing on the God itself.Do you really believe people could stop your God?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Somehow everybody's on the same page but you, maybe?

---

Give me a break. Remember I was responding to you responding to messenjaH responding to schraf's commentary. MessenjaH was apparently also not on the same page, and in other threads she has also received similar criticisms, when using such commentary.It is not the use of hyperbole, but the nature of it which marks her as a feminist (and NOT the equal kind).

quote:

---

I certainly wouldn't give you more credence than anybody who had been in the situation, or had trained to be in it.

---

Are you seriously saying that no one can pass laws on subjects they have no first hand knowledge of?This essentially shoots down the very idea of a democratic-republic.

quote:

---

The alternative is people setting policy for other people's bodies without themselves having the body parts in question. Unacceptable.

---

You have still not answered my question on this. So women incapable of having children cannot be a part of this decision making process? Or do they get to because they have the parts, even if they are useless?And if they are not able to, then why should women who have never had kids get a voice? Maybe having a child is necessary for a woman to truly understand the nature of the birth process and that even the fetus is a child.But let me play a reductio. You say it is women who should be the only one's with a say. Do you know what percentage of women are against abortion? If we limit the ability to rule on abortion to those women who have been pregnant then we may shift the numbers even further to the "right".Would you really accept a verdict that says your girlfriend doesn't have a choice over her reproductive organs and cannot have an abortion, just because it was made by women alone?I sure as hell wouldn't. This goes beyond gender issues. It is whether a group of ANYBODY gets to control your own body, on a personal decision that NO ONE can objectively make statements about.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Imagine vegans get some sort of majority and decide that killing animals for food is murder. Do you believe they should be able to impose their view on you? How about a morality group imposing their definition that even the thought of murder is synonymous with murder and so violent video game players are serial killers?

---

They're people! Opinions can be held if people should die or not but what is the justification of a death of a child. Or something that will with out a doubt become a person.

quote:

---

Do you really believe the government should be forcing you to approach your life decisions according to what the majority wants?

---

No, you should be approaching your decisions knowing what is right and wrong. Does anyone let a serial killer murder because that's one of his life decisions?

quote:

---

Who is to say choosing not to have a child is the pessimistic choice? No one can tell the future. That is the whole point. By forcing a woman to make a specific choice you are saying the majority has some inkling about reality and the future.

---

My way, you give the child the benefit of the doubt. Your way, he dies no matter what. Would he have survived? Maybe.

quote:

---

But you do make a point. No one knows the future. They also do not know what a fetus is. Why is it the place of government to make this determination for others, when there are NO objective standards to differentiate the two?

---

If they don't know how can they perform the abortion?

quote:

---

Actually they are extremely fair questions

---

You're asking me to read God's mind and I'm not the one who knows if the baby is going to die or not.

quote:

---

So if God wants to have Jesus come back, why on earth would he allow people to thwart his plan?

---

I think he would choose someone like Mary.

quote:

---

Do you really believe people could stop your God?

---

Stop him from what? Such a situation would never exist. I feel some of your hypothetical questions are useless.[This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 03-18-2004]

---

-chris

quote:

---

Chris, the issues comes down to the fact that you haven't proven that a fetus or embryo is a full human with human rights, and you haven't proven that abortion is murder. You have nothing in your corner except your religious convictions that life begins at conception. Why does your conviction trump mine that life begins at viability, or Shraf's, or the Christian next door that is pro-choice, or the SCOTUS.

---

The fact is why would a doctor perform an abortion on something that isn't going to become a baby? What would be the need of that procedure?[This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 03-18-2004]

---

-chris

Chris you really haven't answered any of my questions. Why does your conviction trump mine? What is a person?And yes, I get your message that the fetus MIGHT become a baby, but so might each sperm that is lost to masturbation and so might each egg flushed with a mentrual period. Potentiality is not a guarantee.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

quote:

---

They're people!

---

No they are not. See how easy that is?Under the scenario I outlined vegans were able to say animals are the same as people. So they shout "they are living things, and living things are people!"You can deny that as well as anyone can deny that a fertilized egg is a "person". It is all in your gut feeling, and nothing to to do with objective truths. At least not at this point in time. And from what we do know about the reproductive process your view point doesn't look promising.

quote:

---

No, you should be approaching your decisions knowing what is right and wrong.

---

And if the majority of the nation says eating meat or playing video games is wrong, you believe you should toe the line?The similarity between murder and abortion requires a SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL BELIEF. You are being disengenuous every time you avoid this point I am making to simply repeat your position as if it is true.If you have evidence that your SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION is better than mine, then I would like to see it.In fact that is what I was trying to get at with my other questions. These you refuse to answer, yet they are the key to making your SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION coherent.

quote:

---

My way, you give the child the benefit of the doubt. Your way, he dies no matter what. Would he have survived? Maybe.

---

No. My way allows a woman to end the gestational process of a being growing within her. Your way forces her to continue a gestational process which may end with the being: 1) never being born, 2) killing the mother during gestation or childbirth, 3) born into adverse physical/social conditions, and 4) being born and having a "good life".Since you cannot know what the future holds, then you are the one defining optimism/pessimism for someone else. It is not giving the "child" the benefit of the doubt, it is depriving a 100% sentient being the benefit of the doubt of being intelligent enough to make her own choices regarding her own life and that of her offspring.You are telling someone you know what reality is (despite being unable to answer critical questions to your "theory" of life), and so what she believes is completely wrong and cannot make judgements based on those beliefs.

quote:

---

You're asking me to read God's mind and I'm not the one who knows if the baby is going to die or not.

---

I am not asking you to read God's mind at all. In order for your SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION to be true, the fertilized egg (up through the gestational process), must at all stages be EQUAL to a full human being.That requires more than mere assertions on your part, otherwise you are simply talking out your ass. If an embryo is a "child", then why? I have laid out the arguments I have seen so far and they rely on the presence of a soul and/or teleology. At the very least I have seen you use teleology.These arguments raise more questions that need to be answered or you are left holding an empty argument.For example I could say my tv set is a person and in fact my wife, and the government must acknowledge this reality (force companies to give me spousal coverage for my tv). Well that raises a lot of questions. Can I simply say "give the tv the benefit of the doubt" or "that forces me to think about something I do not know"?No. Your SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION regarding life, which is NECESSARY to make the claim that abortion is murder, requires YOU answer those questions.If your reply is that it requires you to know God's mind and you can't, then you are by definition admitting you do not know whether abortion is murder. This is hardly justification for the state to come in and trample a woman who feels differently than you.My suggestion is you go out and find answers to those questions. They are real and necessary to make your position stronger than "cause I say so".

quote:

---

I think he would choose someone like Mary.

---

Exactly messenjaH. So the argument that God's plans can be foiled, and humans might abort the next jesus, are fallacious.

quote:

---

Stop him from what? Such a situation would never exist. I feel some of your hypothetical questions are useless.

---

Far from useless, it already did it's job... Don't you get it? This peels away a layer of arguments that the antiAbortion crowd uses, including one you already have.Given your answer you can no longer make arguments along the lines that humans might kill Jesus when they perform abortions.While I sympathize that you have a strong gut reaction to this topic, and so want it to be easy to make arguments, it is not easy at all. This is doubly true when your position requires a SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION, a religious one at that, which not everyone shares, and the government is bound from imposing on others.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL BELIEF

---

...

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION

---

.........

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION

---

............

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION

---

.................

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION

---

.............

quote:

---

SPECIFIC METAPHYSICAL POSITION

---

Okay Joralex fess up! What'd you do with Holmes????

Sorry about that... his avoiding real debate through the restating of his own position as if it was objective reality, got me wanting to show him how many times he was doing so.Thus every time his religion was required to make his legal claim, I pointed it out in caps.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'll respond later.

Hey Holmes, 1) I think you had a defensive moment even though I agree with you somewhat.
2) I thought h/she was implying that men take a lot less responsibility for sex and the results. Which, statistically, is true.
3) Women being given a "free ride on sexual responsibility"? Reality check: when does this actually happen? They're stuck with the result of a night of 'Freak on a Leash' sex.....oopsy passing on a soul to a new being (enter Enigma singing). Gimme a break!For the record, I am of the opinion that
1)It should NEVER be allowed as a birth control measure.
2)Mother in danger, yep.
3)Rape, incest, and molesting absolutely.
4)Birth defect, yep.Adoptions? Don't we have enough children in need already from people making the decision to keep their kids and then not knowing what to do with them until the State takes them away? But then opinions are like a**holes.

What about when you're using birth control, but it fails? It happens, you know.