Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote:

---

But in the abortion if they're just a group of cells why are they being eliminated? Do you think it may be that those cells would become something soon?

---

If a person said I want to kill these cells because they will become a baby and I want to kill babies, then your argument may hold some water. But this is not what is happening in abortion.Perhaps you should think seriously about where those cells are, and what relationship the cells hold with relation to the entity that is currently containing them. Without question the "vessel" is a full human being, whether those cells are a "being" is debatable.This is not to say that your POV is wrong. If one feels that a soul enters at conception, and so makes it identical to any other grown human being, then clearly killing an embryo is murder to such a person, and that POV is valid. However, that belief is not shared by everyone and it is so far unproven that such a thing as souls even exist, much less are measurable during gestation, and so their POV is equally valid.In light of this, isn't the best way to handle the situation to allow each person to make up their own mind regarding the metaphysics of life and reproduction and treat their own situation accordingly?Interestingly, you have already started shifting toward the proChoice position.You have identified that, even if an embryo has a soul and so is a person, it is not a complete person and so the owner of that gestational being might have good reason to end its gestation. For example if its growth will kill the owner, or if it will not grow properly and end up torturing the soul until its death.With just those two reasons alone, even if rare, if abortion is outlawed then they will have no option in those cases.But let us go further. What about a child that will be born into a situation that is not good for it. For example a child born into poverty, especially if the parent had been raped and so may be psychologically hostile to the child. You say the parent should just give it up for adoption. Is this "adoption" a particular place that takes all babies and treats them well? Why couldn't a parent decide, much like if their child would be born deformed, that they would not want their child born into a situation that they themselves consider needless suffering?And this is getting closer to the real point, is it not their own child? Is it not an extension of themselves borne from THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS? Who are they reproducing? Themselves. An embryo is not some divinely manufactured entity separate from its host, but a product of an organism that is reproducing itself in a new form. Why should a reproducer not have control over that which it is reproducing?Some people even view their offspring as a literal continuation of their own soul or existence. Do these people not have a right to decide into what conditions their soul or existence enters? Perhaps abortion is as much mercy for themselves as it is for a potential child. They are seeking only the best conditions for their child's and so their own future.I do not see the advantage of encouraging people to have children that at their outset are not desired to finish gestation, even if they may get adopted at some later date. Especially in a world where population is an issue, this seems sort of an odd fantasy solution.How does forced childbearing REALLY help the potential child or the already existing parent? I understand it makes busybodies feel better about their ability to control other people's choices, but ultimately you are simply telling the parent they must shoot dice with their own life in order to guarantee some dice shoot for their kid's life. It is not like the kid is guaranteed anything in their life besides death, not even love.And on that note I have a series of questions, which I have never understood about the antiAbortion side of the debate:1) Often the argument is (as you have used) based on teleology. The cells will someday be a baby, so embryos are babies. Ignoring for a moment that that is not a guarantee at all, why are we stopping at that point? The end point of cells growing is not a full grown human, but a dead and decaying body. Especially for people that believe in a soul, and that our best place is in heaven, how do you differentiate the baby from the dead body as a teleological endpoint?2) The next argument is that it is harming an innocent soul when it is unable to defend itself. Most fertilized eggs do not make it through to becoming full babies. Why are we then to believe that the soul enters at the beginning, or along most of that gestational period? If souls are a part of this process then what is happening to all of those souls (the majority) that are not born?3) One possible answer is that God does not bother to put souls into children that will not be born, or another is that it is just a physical death and the soul is left untouched. In either case, how can abortion be viewed as doing anything harmful (along the lines of murder) to the unborn? Either God knows it will be terminated and so does not put a soul in, or whatever we do it is not unlike an end that could just as easily have happened later during gestation.4) Finally there are appeals to what it costs the world, or God. It is an odd idea that man's ability to perform abortions could somehow challenge God's plans. I realize you are not saying this but some do, arguing we may kill the next Jesus. This almost sounds like blasphemy to me. In the end some babies will be born that will go on to do good things, some will go on to do bad things. If God has a hand in anything then this cannot be stopped. And it seems odd to demand a woman not control her own biological and perhaps spiritual destiny, just so WE can see what things her baby MIGHT do, if in fact it does come to term.

---

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

Everything you said regarding women's rights I agreed with, but as usual you lapse into some anti-male agenda which ends up hurting your case, and/or potentially alienating people that might agree with you.

quote:

---

Don't you think, if one wanted to avoid abortions taking place, one would focus on teaching men to keep it in their pants, and if they can't do that, perhaps teach them to use condoms?

---

This is truly a sexist comment. Obviously if we are talking about RAPE, then the problem is RAPISTS RAPING and not men keeping their cocks in their pants.Are you seriously suggesting that rapes make up all abortions, or that women should be given a free ride on sexual responsibility when it is not rape?If anything this supports messenjaH's position. He is not arguing that women are worthless, just that every life is equally precious and so women do have the potential to get put into positions where they do not get to choose anything they want. If the child and the mother's lives are equal, and every life should be protected, then abortion is wrong.It is as much a duty for a girl to give birth (under that ideology) as it is to not kill your kid after birth. I do not agree with that equation which is why I support choice, but that is not his position (or at least it was not in his first post) and so your argument ends up being a strawman.And of course this is why the same people pushing the antiAbortion message often chime your line... abstinence education first! Keep it in or out of your pants, because it is everyone's responsibility to avoid women having to face that issue until they are ready. You will note they are also not too fond of rapists.They care about women's rights, they just also believe in an embryo's rights too (as equals)I guess the thing I like about those fundies (in opposition to feminist fundies) is at least they are equal opportunity finger pointers.

quote:

---

Did you know that adult men are the cause of the majority of underage girls' pregnancies? Who is on their case?

---

This is ridiculous. With the extreme witchhunt mentality regarding underage sex sweeping the globe, are you seriously telling me no one is one men's cases?That such things still happen does not indicate no one is doing anything, or saying anything negative about it. It just means that humans do human things. They always have and they always will no matter how 1984 we go.Frankly, I find the over "victimizing" by our culture of young girls who get pregnant, (viewing each instance as violator-victim) more harmful than helpful. More harmful in general, than the pregnancy itself.I knew a girl (when I was young) that was bright and cheerful and she got pregnant by an older guy and was kind of shocked but still happy, but then people treated her so much like a victim that she became scarred into thinking of herself that way. It was really sad to watch that young beautiful girl fade away.I knew another girl that got pregnant under similar circumstances and while the family was a bit scandalized they got over it and she did fine.Heck I knew a family where ALL the women (at least from the great grandmother on down) had had their first kid at 13. They'd laugh about it and not make a big deal, just helped out where they needed to and in all other ways they were perfectly "normal".Our current treatment is reminiscent of the "homes for unwed mothers" in the past. Scandalizing women for having been "used" by some "bad man".This is not to mention society's destroying the men (adult or not) who may have fathered the child. Perhaps instead of imprisoning or publically flogging them, we could just make sure they knuckle down and act responsible for the resulting child.But I guess it'll always be easier to point fingers when a young girl gets pregnant, making everyone feel bad for the rest of their lives, rather than just helping them out and feel good about themselves.I wonder if we removed all the fear factor and societal pressure on young girls regarding pregnancy and sex, whether we'd naturally have less abortions or cases where young girls abandon their babies after birth. I'd love some stats on how much the fear of getting caught having "underage sex" has kept girls from using protection or getting the healthcare they needed once pregnant.

quote:

---

The fact is, it's much easier to lay blame after the fact instead of working to prevent it in the first place.

---

Yeah, let's work on castrating all men now! That way we don't have to blame MEN later. Heheheh.Or maybe we could never "blame" ANYONE when pregnancies occur, except of course for blaming rapists for rapes.Perhaps we could even calm down about sex in general and not freak out when looking at statistics, as if they are delivering moral messages about "where we are headed".Pregnancies happen when PEOPLE choose to have vaginal sex, and it'll even happen with condoms. Being negative before during and after sex just isn't helpful, even if you tell them about condoms.Beforehand, sex education ought to be positive, and show how to eliminate risks (including the obvious choice of abstention or masturbation for complete safety). That way during sexual activities everyone (even young girls with older men) know how to minimize or eliminate risk.Then if someone takes a risk and comes out on the wrong side of the dice roll, have everyone deal positively with the situation. If the girl wants to keep the child then it ought to be a nonissue, and treated as something positive. If she doesn't want it, then it should be a health issue and taken care of calmly like any other medical procedure.The momentum should be against making anyone feel bad, because they have to deal with the results of their choice. Beating them down doesn't help.That goes for men and women, or boys and girls, alike.But I guess that's my two cents, which may be just as alienating to others as yours.

---

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

quote:

---

I do notice, however, that most anti-choice groups focus on controling women's bodies and not men's.

---

This is ridiculous given serious thought. What else is an antiABORTION group supposed to focus on? They have to focus on women because only women are having abortions. Give science time and the first man carrying a child I'm sure antiAbortion groups will fight their choice to abort.I pointed out that members of antiAbortion groups are pretty solidly behind the EXACT THING you said... men need to learn to keep it in their pants.Like you, they DO believe that unwanted pregnancies should be stopped at their source, which is to say SEX. I'm trying to figure out how you haven't heard them coming out against premarital sex, and for abstinence education.Clearly they won't do that at the doors of abortion clinics, but that kind of makes sense doesn't it?Look, I am on your side with regard to women's rights. I'm just saying you are not doing US a service by painting them out to be inhuman monsters, or sexist oppressors.They hold a different (and in my view errant) metaphysical position with regard to life, as well as an incorrect ideological position with regard to how the government can impose that metaphysical position on others.Their metaphysical position however is not against women, it really is proLife (up until it is born, and then they go hypocritical).

quote:

---

Most anti-choice groups I have read about do not focus their efforts on the male half of the equation.

---

Really? Do you really mean to say that MOST antiAbortion groups are not allied with abstinence only education groups? I think some research might be in order.Like you they think people should prevent the pregnancies beforehand. Toward this end they are for abstinence education, greater punishments for rapists, as well as ending pornography which encourages premarital sex.

quote:

---

Are you saying that a 13 year old girl with no sexual experience who agrees to have sex with a sexually experienced 21 year old hasn't likely been manipulated and coerced? The same goes with a young boy and an adult woman. Was it OK for that female teacher to have an affair with her 13 year old student? I don't think so.

---

Well you certainly stack a loaded deck for me to choose from.If your real question is whether a 13 year old can consent to sex with an older person, without manipulation and coercion, then the answer is unquestionably YES.Will they be on the same playing field of sexual knowledge? Probably (and I would add hopefully) not.I always find it funny when prudes cart this argument out. Just because a young person has less knowledge, and an older person has more knowledge, does not make imparting the greater knowledge to that younger person involves deceit and coercion.Otherwise all cases of teaching itself are manipulation and coercion.Why do you believe that a 13 year old would have 0 sexual knowledge (they can't read and never masturbated to fantasies?), and would be uninterested in learning more about sex from older people that might be more experienced.I love your later post where you give stats on the age difference between women and men for pregnancies... I hate to say it but don't most girls PREFER older men? That has been a pretty consistent theme in every girl I have ever met, stretching back to junior high. High school girls wanted at least college age boys. College girls wanted professors and professionals. College graduates wanted men well into their career.Again I think you have confused demographics with some sort of moral calculation.But lets ACTUALLY discuss coercion and manipulation. I do believe older people are able to manipulate younger people better do to experience, or position of authority. This is an important issue to keep an eye on and to prevent. However, it is ludicrous (IMO) to move from that and say all cases of old-young sexual contact is coercive, or that cases of young-young or old-old contact are less likely to be coercive.I am not sure which teacher you are talking about, since there are actually two cases of this in the news. But from what I understand NEITHER were cases of coercion at all. In both the kids actually wanted to have sex with the teacher and enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't think it was a power trip, at least not over the kid.That said, I am against it for other reasons. I believe that parents should have very strong rights with respect to their children. In both cases the parents were against what happened and that showed a pretty large disregard of the teachers toward the student's home life. So they CERTAINLY had a right to complain. This is compounded by the fact that she was a teacher. People in positions where families send their kids to be in a nonsexual environment, have a right to expect those people in charge do not take advantage of THEIR trust... even if the kid decides to play around.I think European models, at least before the US got involved were some of the best models for handling sexual rights. In the Netherlands (as one example) children were allowed to have sex from 12 on. From this age to 16, both the child and the parents had the right to press charges against anyone having sex with the child. Thus THEY had control of sexual freedom and not the state. In any case, persons with positions of authority over the child were barred from sexual contact.I will note that your own scenario of a 13yo having sex with someone older, is LEGAL in some US states. So at least in some states age difference is not that huge or immediate an indicator of coercion.

quote:

---

Some of those "human things" that we do involve the sexual manipulation of and power trips over young children and need to be discouraged.

---

Agreed, that includes people who go on power trips to stop "children" from having sex (even with older people) because of a false presumption it must be coerced and manipulated, because they personally feel sex is negative and all kids must feel the same by default.It IS time to end the witchhunt mentality regarding sex. Kids do it too. Kids want it too. Were you not a kid? Did you not want it? I dunno, maybe you were molested or something and so made to feel like a victim. Okay, in that case I feel bad for you. But most kids do just fine with their own sexual growth, and we cannot limit them all, just for the MINORITY of cases.At least, that will not do anything to STOP molestation. ALL it does is give children insecurities and negative attitudes towards something that should be joyful.

quote:

---

I disagree that they care about women's rights.

---

You may be right that in addition to their antiAbortion stance, they tend to hold the Xian stance of women being lesser than men, and not exactly equal rights activists.But this is not true for all of them, and it is a false connection to make between abortion and other sex issues, and gender issues. Why is it so hard for you to believe they actually feel like life begins at conception and so not taking caring of your fetus is like not taking care of your toddler?Painting them as insincere, rather than mistaken, is not helping.

quote:

---

You certainly have made a habit out of reponding to your twisted version of my position instead of my actual position, holmes.

---

You clipped the heheheh off my quote!I am trying to tell you that your stated positions on sexual issues definitely put the onus on men for everything bad, especially older men. I realize you are not for castration, but you do come off as a manhating (and sexually victorian) feminist.On this issue in particular, saying things like those in antiAbortion groups don't pick on men, especially with regard to underage pregnancies, comes off as irrationally defensive. They certainly DO attack men. Its just no use to do so at an abortion clinic.And with regard to the antiAbortion crowd, you are pushing the feminist line too hard. This is not a woman-man issue, it is really an equal life-life issue.

---

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

First of all I would like to point out that the question was regarding occurence of underage pregnancy with relation to age difference. It was not regarding the possibility of coercion in underage sex, though you managed to sneak that in as the majority of your points...Second I will note that the link in question quotes studies with known problems. Especially with regard to simple age difference issues (beyond pregnancy rates).The prime study is not just a bit biased (coming as it does from a group trying to stop teen pregnancy), and as it is used some of the worst techniques possible.Schraf, this makes the third time I have found a source of yours to have serious flaws. I realize the EvC forum shouldn't take up all your time, but you ought to do some research on the studies you cite, as well as understand more about sociological research methods. Here is an interesting link analyzing different studies, including the one where your stats were derived, and showing some SERIOUS flaws in methodology. For example (in case you decide not to go) did that study include oral, anal, or heavy petting in their definition of "intercourse"? Hmmmmm.As it is I am left scratching my head at a stat like 93% said something was voluntary, and at the same time 25% said it was unwanted. That still means a majority were voluntary and wanted (even with age difference). But apparently 18% volunteered to do something they did not want? This should have been examined by the study more closely.Strictly speaking on pregnancy issues, 1 in 5 is not a huge percentage, so I am wondering what your point is with your stats. Even assuming they are correct, please explain how when the analyses of age with relation to sex are compared with age related to pregnancy, you come up with some criticism of age different sex?More intriguing is what stats you do NOT show from your link. The very cultures which allow for younger sex, including old-young, defy the underage pregnancy "problem" seen in the prudish US. You yourself pointed out that Japan has allowed childporn and childsex for ages and continues to do so, and I have mentioned Netherlands as a sex tolerant society along those same lines.Perhaps blaming teen pregnancy in the US on coercion of minors into sex is like blaming violence in the US on video games and movies? It appears where sex is not treated with prudishness, and the sexual experience of children is not stifled... pregnancy goes down, drastically.This appears to be supported by the following point within your own link. Once again, I want to encourage you to analyze studies before you accept them and/or cite them. Especially sociological studies are prone to error, and biases of the researcher.I might also encourage you to stop viewing them as making moral conclusions, or allowing us to make moral conclusions. That's usually the same mistake researchers who create biased studies have made when setting their study up.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-15-2004]

---

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

I think you're being unfair to messenjaH.His comment regarding schraf's being in the feminist movement is obviously a ref to her rather feminist fundie lingo. She clearly has a bias as to who is "guilty" in pregnancy, despite the actual findings in the studies she presented.Weren't you at least slightly taken back by the "men have to keep it their pants" approach to unwanted pregnancies?

quote:

---

if you have a penis, you're disqualified from the abortion debate. Your experience with abortion will never be closer than second-hand.

---

While I agree with men not having a say in a particular woman's abortion, I am not so sure that men cannot be part of the debate. In fact, I find this statement slightly odd in that it seems to presuppose that there are no women against abortion. I believe the split is just as high on this issue as it is in men. Maybe someone has some stats?The thing is if embryos or fetuses are thought of as truly living human beings of EQUAL value to the mother, then messenjaH has a valid point and is not trying to deprive women of their rights.Here is hopefully an adequate analogy.A mother is spelunking with her son. They get to a hairy cliff edge and repel down further into the cavern. During the repel a pinion breaks free and a large rock falls to knock the son unconscious.Being tied to the mother he is saved from his certain fall to death, but this has now put his mother in jeapordy as well. While it is likely that she can make it back to the cliff edge and pull her son up afterward, there is a chance that her pinion or line will break, plunging them both to their demise.Do you believe that just because she is the mother, she has a right to cut her son's line? Do you believe that only spelunkers and cliff climbers have the right to say whether she can or not? Is it impossible for others to come to an intelligent conclusion regarding the situation she is in? And if so, why?I get that women are in the (so far by nature) unique position of bearing the burden of carrying a life. That can suck or be beneficial depending how one views it. While I think it gives insight to a particular woman on when she feels her fetus has become a child, I do not believe that alters people from coming to a rational conclusion based on objective definitions or measurements... though I am of the opinion we don't have sets of these yet.Let's take a hypthetical. Let's say research someday allows scientists to accurately measure consciousness (awareness of surroundings and selfbeing) and determine at some point fetuses have true consciousness, even if not so much educated, as any grown up.At that point would men still be disqualified in making a statement regarding abortion? Why would a mother have some extra-privileged position? Just because by nature she is stuck with the biological burden? I am unsure if moral conclusions can be exclusively limited (as shown by the analogy above) to those within unique physical positions.While I wholly disagree with messenjaH's opinion, I kind of wish people would stop making him out to be a sexist. I have yet to see him say anything inherently sexist as a reason for his being against abortion.

---

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

quote:

---

I said you should have choice there.

---

Just to let you know, this by definition makes you proChoice.As an aside, could I possibly get you to answer my reply to your first post? I've been doing quite a job sticking up for you in my other posts, and kind of hoped you would take my post and position as seriously as I have treated yours.Thanks.

---

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

quote:

---

My "keeping it in their pants" comment was probably ill advised,

---

Uhmmmm. If it was just me that has made comments regarding the nature of your apparent ideology, then I might feel somewhat guilty.However comments such as the above do pepper your posts, and people other than myself have pointed this out to you in the past. Despite this, you continue to use sterotypical male bashing terminology, and lead with quotes from biased (sometimes clearly fundamentalist feminist) literature.Now maybe you don't mean it. But how the heck can anyone else know what you mean? In the specific case of the comment above, it cut no slack to men at all, and gave a definite appearance of being a female chauvinist.I will add that so far in this thread, you appear to have misrepresented messenjaH's position more than I could possibly have "twisted" yours. And you have even omitted an indicator I was making a joke to say I was misrepresenting your position. What can I do if you can't take a joke?But let's get to the real stuff...1)

quote:

---

My point was that very few of the anti-choice organizations focus any of their energy on men's equal role in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

---

This point has already been countered, yet you have not addressed it. AntiAbortion groups are linked to other family values organizations which DO put pressure on men not to have sex, and hold them equally responsible when they do.An antiAbortion group itself spending money and time to address men just seems ludicrous, and to suggest they ought to just to seems to miss the whole point. Men do not have abortions, thus these groups have nothing to say to them regarding abortion. That is what their sister organizations are for.2) Neither have you addressed points addressing your posted link, specifically those related to your stats on age difference, sex, and pregnancy. My comments could hardly have misrepresented what you said, or the article you quoted.I am quite interested in why you omitted reference to stats from your own link which contradict the connection you were apparently trying to make with the stats you did quote in your post.Let me repeat... Your link contained stats showing that nations which were the most accepting of child and adult-child sex had the lowest rates of teen pregnancy, by a factor of 9 times. And from links I gave you in another thread we have seen that sex crimes (involuntary sex) was lower within those same nations.If the connection you were trying to make is legitimate, it appears isolated to the US... which means it is as conclusive as saying violent video games and movies are the reason the US has more violent crimes than everyone else. Purely correlative and not causative in any sense.If I was wrong, I would like an explanation why.If I was wrong about the connection you were trying to make, I would like to know what point you were trying to make with the link and the stats.

---

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

quote:

---

I guess I'm not particularly bothered by the suggestion that men as a group could stand to be more sexually responsible.

---

Did I suggest something other than this? Her statement... which she herself has now admitted was perhaps illadvised... does suggest that even OUTSIDE OF RAPE, women have NO responsibility.Now maybe she looks cute on her horse, but that's no reason to cut her a break when she makes an overstatement.Personally, I feel no connection to rapists, molesters, or sexually aggressive guys that push women around for sexual pleasure (unless the girl consents to the pushing), so I take offense when people make out like I have to take responsibility (or feel guilty) for them, just because we share the same sexual organs.My only obligation is to stop abuse where I see it, and understand how to take care of my and my partner's sexual health. I believe women share an EQUAL obligation in this.

quote:

---

I do think that the arrogance level of men in the abortion debate needs to be ratcheted way down.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Men need to accept whatever consensus the community of women come to on this issue, and that to me is that. There's just simply no way for a man to have all of the facts in the situation, because the experience of pregnancy will always be foreign to him.

---

Disagreed.Why didn't you address my spelunking analogy?I would add that I have no understanding how a woman would know what it's like to have a pregnancy until she has in fact been pregnant. Just being a woman is hardly criteria to know what pregnancy is. Some women won't ever even have a chance at pregnancy.So who really makes up this community of women that gets to tell everyone else what they get to do with the life within them?I think using this approach to assessing justice is, while emotionally appealling, somewhat problematic. Shall we use your technique only for pregnancy or all situations where only a small group can truly know what the accused feels? If not, why not?

---

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

quote:

---

I am not hiding from anything you say.

---

You are apparently hiding from things that I say. Why not give me a shot if you don't like her feminist brand of proChoice arguments?But in defense of Schraf...

quote:

---

Hey, you can keep your pregnancy to yourself but if your killing someone and burying the evidence, there is a cover up.

---

This is a pretty ridiculous argument, and you should be able to realize that.Abortions are medical procedures. Everything involved with medical procedures are "hidden" to the public, and even when blood is taken out it is disposed of "secretly" and "carefully". The term is biohazard.Are you seriously suggesting all medical procedures should be open to the public and all objects removed passed around, otherwise something shifty is going on?I would also add there is a need for extra privacy with regard to abortion because ironically named "proLife" zealots have a habit of shooting and bombing all the 100% living human beings hanging around the area.

quote:

---

What is the difference between "infantacide" and abortion? One is only done at a later stage in life, right?

---

Can you tell me the difference between menstruation, a miscarriage, and someone dying of old age? How about a zygote, a toddler, and an old man?These are all forms of life or death at different stages in a life cycle. The whole point is that "stages" are extremely important in defining what those lives and deaths mean to us.To my mind the person that cannot disinguish between a fertilized egg washed out in a menstrual cycle, and an old man dying in a bed, is living in a seriously confused world.

quote:

---

This is a mistake on my part, I have since then redefined when a human's a human, as noted in the sentences above.

---

You cannot consistently make this statement, and also that you can see no difference between abortion and infanticide.

---

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

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:

---

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)

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)

quote:

---

I thought h/she was implying that men take a lot less responsibility for sex and the results...

---

No matter her intended implication, she was explicitly stating that if antiAbortion groups were actually interested in ending abortion, they should focus on men's decisions to have sex.I thought this was ridiculous, and the only point I was making.

quote:

---

... Which, statistically, is true.

---

Okay, let me see the studies which have generated these stats.

quote:

---

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!

---

You are talking about something other than I am. Obviously the cosmos has stuck women holding the short end of the stick once pregnancy occurs. In THAT, women will always face responsibility for carrying a pregnancy, or not, once it happens.However, when one says to properly end unwanted pregnancies, one needs to control the sexual behavior of men, then one is giving women a free ride on the sexual responsibility of not getting pregnant in the first place. That is what schraf was expressed (intentionally or not), and that is what I addressed.

quote:

---

For the record, I am of the opinion that

---

Who cares? You are wrong... heheheh, just kidding.Seriously though, I disagree with your first opinion. Since I view reproduction as THE MOST personal act anyone can undertake, and that there is no correct definition of what a fetus is, abortion is a perfectly viable method to regulate reproduction.I believe relying on that method alone is irresponsible and indicates a measure of willful ignorance, but the idiocy of a few should not reflect on the viability of a medical procedure.Personally I have never understood how one can be against abortion for personal regulation of their reproductive process, but at the same time be for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or molestation. All that seems to mean is that there are some negative social situations that YOU wouldn't want your children born into. Why couldn't a woman find other situations equally abhorrent?

quote:

---

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?

---

Agreed. But then this does seem to support the idea that abortion should be open as an option for controlling one's reproductive process.

quote:

---

But then opinions are like a**holes.

---

Does that mean critical debate is like anal sex?

---

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