Abortion questions...?

If giving them away was too much work, I'd put them in a sack with some rocks and find a river.No, really. They're just animals. You know, for all of human history, that's been done with unwanted babies, too. Abortion and infanticide have been absolutely natural and commonplace means of planning families in every civilization, for as long as there have been civilizations. The "tradition" to which the pro-lifers would have us return is a myth. Even in America abortion has always been absolutely legal, except for a few decades between the 1910's and the 1970's.Of course, slavery was common, too. Still is common, actually. As we move forward, trying to structure society in a way that is most advantageous for most people, slavery is definately not a part of that. But abortion very much seems to be. Avaliability of abortion improves the quality of life for all.

I guess. Though the river solution is both euthanasia and body disposal, all in one. But of course they can feel pain. Pain is a physiological alarm signal, not the Dark Side of the Force. I'm really only concerned about it when it's being caused in members of my own species.I don't imagine that a painless, non-scary death is actually possible. Why would organisms evolve with a weakness that allows them to die without realizing it?I eat meat, and I know that you do, too. Which means that you kill animals for your own selfish purpose, just like me. People who deal with that seem to deal with it in one of two ways - hippy-dippy "words of gratitude" for the animal that "gave it's life" that we might have a cheeseburger instead of a bowl of rice like most of the world, or the recognition that pain and death are the flip side of life, and we use these organisms for the same purpose that we ourselves will be used by others some day.

And also when they wet the bed as children. You never did, I trust?Are you sure?I guess I don't see my method as wanton cruelty, or even torture for amusement, which is what I would consider indicative of sociopathy. People dispose of unwanted pets in all manner of means, almost none of which are truly painless. We don't seem to be terribly interested in lodging accusations of sociopathy against them. You really think so? You think the bolt gun to the forehead is truly painless? I doubt it. It's probably quite painful for a moment or two.Nobody really knows, though, for sure. The first seems very much a contradiction in terms to me. I don't see anything humane aboout killing. I accept the inhumanity of causing death when it suits a human purpose to do so. I'm a species-ist, I guess.I don't know, I guess. I was kind of being flippant before. I wouldn't go enormously out of my way to deal with some unwanted dogs, but I wouldn't torture them for pleasure. And if someone knew a better way to euthanize them that didn't require the expensive services of a veternarian, I would pay heed.

Yet, you replied.Eh, whatever. Honestly the whole idea of men sitting around arguing about what it's ok for women to do to their bodies is pretty ridiculous in the first place.As is starting a new thread on an old topic, merely to dodge a bunch of posts you aren't capable of responding to.

Not because I enjoy cruelty. I just don't find the suffering of an animal to be one of my top priorities. Animals are for my use, if I choose to use them, and I have the power to do so. Much as I'm for their use, if they have the opportunity and the power to use me. It was your posts in the thread on abortion I was referring to. I'm so terribly sorry that you don't have the time or inclination to respond to rebuttals, but if that's the case, opening a new thread on the same topic seems pretty fucking ridiculous, doesn't it?

Sigh... Now it's pretty clear that you're not the one worth replying to, if, in your mind, the disposal of a few unwanted puppies is an act morally equivalent to the Holocaust.

No, that's pretty much exactly what you did say.If that's the moral calculus you subscribe to, Ludo, it's not going to be possible for us to communicate meaningfully. Things that seem obvious to me aren't going to be apparent to you, because to you, the extermination of millions of human beings is exactly the same as drowning some nuisance puppies. Why would anybody do those things if they didn't enjoy cruelty?

Boy, I wouldn't want to talk to that guy either.Oh, you meant me! "Slaughter the unborn", huh? What was that last part, in that list of things that disqualify someone in your view from discussion? "Misreads or misinterprets what I write"? Surgeon, heal thyself. And it seems that you have a significant problem determining the moral difference between the disposal of dogs and the extermination of millions of fully-fledged human beings, each with their own minds, their own wills, their own hopes and dreams. Each possessed of that mental "spark", that individuality, that the unborn do not and cannot possess.

Why would I do it if I didn't enjoy it?Your questions don't make sense, Ludo. They're nonsense. Cruel acts done soley for the enjoyment of cruelty are barbaric. And if a cruel act could have no justification but the enjoyment of cruelty, why would someone do it if they weren't motivated by the enjoyment of cruelty?But if the act has a justification that has nothing to do with the enjoyment of cruelty, that is the justification we must assess. And you're an shithead. Can we dispense with the ad hominem, now? Or do you want to go back and forth a few more times?We might both agree that pulling someone's fingernails off is a cruel act, and that someone who did that because they enjoyed it was a barbaric monster.But also, doctors remove fingernails for a host of medical reasons. There's a potential justification for that act that is sufficient, in the proper context.What sufficient justification do you propose, beyond sadism, for the decision to exterminate Jews, gays, gypsies, and millions of others? The question as you frame it is nonsense, and replying to my objections with a snide "you tell me" is disingenuous, and indicative of your basic dishonesty - indeed, the dishonesty that typifies the majority of the foes of reproductive choice. You're not the only one who's ever seen a dog. I invite you to keep that in mind. I've never looked in the eyes of a dog and seen the mind of an equal. Maybe you do? That doesn't say much for you, I guess. Nontheless, there's a reason why killing an adult, or even a child, is murder; and killing a dog is a property crime at worst. You mean like every human civilization has done for eternity? I don't see a practical need to euthanize the severely retarded. They're not, typically, residing inside a woman's uterus and putting her life at constant risk.This is just another one of your red herrings. It's all but impossible for you to stay on topic, isn't it? I suggest that you either make good on your infantile threat to stop taking to me, or else you start discussing honestly. I'll never stop correcting you where you're wrong, of course. But these dishonest, insulting attacks only draw the bankrupcy of your position into stark relief.

So then you admit your question is nonsense? Good, we can move on, then. I did answer your question.You just didn't like the answer. Pointing out that your question is nonsense is an answer. It's a nonsense question, because it describes a situation that can't possibly exist. You're asking me to assess the moral qualities of a situation that is impossible. It's against the law, isn't it? Why wouldn't it be murder? You're probably going to ask me what the difference is, and the difference is this: the law says that abortion is not murder, but infanticide is. Murder, being a legal term, is defined by statute. Bring it back? Where do you think it went? If you'll hold to that, I agree. Just remember that you're the one who decided to employ such language in the first place.

Why do you think they're not "ready to do it", when a substantial number (if indeed not a majority) are "doing it"? Are they post-puberty or not? It wasn't all that long ago that 15-year-olds were getting legally married. Having sex is something they're perfectly capable of, and frequently completely ready to do. If they have the capacity, knowledge, and foresight to use birth control - and the majority of sexually-active teens do - there's really no basis to conclude that they're not "ready" for sexual activity. Most of your perspective is just sexual panic and typical adult patronization of teenagers, IMO.

So, in other words, they were taught sex ed just at the time they most needed it, whereas you would have preferred that they not receive sex education for another four years after they started being sexually active.How does that make any fucking sense at all?

Because teaching them after they're ready to do it exposes them to a dangerous time when they're ready to have sex, but don't know anything about it. I mean, you just gave the proof - clearly, your sex education came just in time for your female classmates, who were beginning sexual activity within months of the education.That's pretty much the definition of "just in time", and if anything, proves that the education should have started even earlier. No, we teach people to drive before they're ready to drive, that's why you have to go to driving school before you can get a driver's license - to make you ready to drive. No, we teach people to use guns before they're ready to use guns, that's why you have to take a class to get a gun license - to make you ready to use a gun. No, we teach them to use drills before they're ready to use drills, because that's what makes you ready to use a drill - being taught how to use a drill safely.If you wait until after someone starts doing something to show them how to do it safely, you expose them to considerable danger during the time they're engaged in the activity but don't know how to do it safely. Your notion of waiting four years after sexual activity begins to teach teens how to engage in sex safely is lunacy. Your own example proves what a terrible idea it is - your school barely educated your female classmates in time.

Weren't they? If they had the desire to, and the knowledge to do so safely, in what sense weren't they ready for sex?And if they were ready, who on Earth are you to say otherwise? People act like the only reasonable goal in regards to the sexual health of teenagers is to make sure that they have no sex at all, but I don't see why that should be the case. (Interestingly enough the demographic with the largest incidence of new STD infections is the over-40 crowd pushing all this teenage abstinence messaging. followed closely by their over-65 parents. Seniors seem to think that condoms are for teenagers.)