The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Wild Card => Topic started by: CortJstr on November 08, 2004, 09:33:31 pm
-
Theft does have a secular argument in that outright theft runs contrary to the basics of capitalism. If it were legal it would also create a highly negative immigration rate which is undesireable for any state.
Abortion will never be settled. My religion says that just because something is alive doesn't mean it has a soul (i.e. housepets can't get into heaven). So even if the anti-choice and pro-choice factions could agree on when life began that would just lead to the neverending theological argument about when a soul begins.
-
Yes, but pro-lifers seem to value their house pets more than human offspring.
It's not a religious issue as much as a human rights issue. When I hear women talk about "controlling their own bodies" I have to wonder why they think it is NOT okay for someone else to dictate what happens to their bodies but that it is okay for them to dictate what happens to someone else's (i.e. their unborn or semi-born child's).
It's only recently that killing a child of the wrong gender or due to inconvenience has even been an issue. But is the practise any less barbaric because it's how things "used to be"?
You can tell the people who kill their own babies know it's wrong simply by the terminology they use. Phrases like "The Right to Choose" always leave off the ever-descriptive "... to kill one's own child" at the end of it. This is the purpose of euphamisms - to make something taboo or unspeakable seem not as bad. Since most folks can agree that murdering babies is "wrong" then if you want to do that why NOT put a positive spin on it? "I'm not against babies - I'm for choice (the choice to kill my baby."
It all sounds so much nicer when put that way.
-
You can tell the people who kill their own babies know it's wrong simply by the terminology they use. Phrases like "The Right to Choose" always leave off the ever-descriptive "... to kill one's own child" at the end of it. This is the purpose of euphamisms - to make something taboo or unspeakable seem not as bad. Since most folks can agree that murdering babies is "wrong" then if you want to do that why NOT put a positive spin on it? "I'm not against babies - I'm for choice (the choice to kill my baby."
It all sounds so much nicer when put that way.
I think that they don't feel that "to kill one's own child" naturally follows. It's not as if they are leaving it off. It's that you feel that it should be appended to it.
-
Okay, so what is "pro choice" choosing if not to kill one's own child?
Hey, I'm all for choice! I think places like Baskin-Robbins are great!
But the euphamism here "right to choose" doesn't state what it is choosing. It conveniently leaves that part out, since it would be distasteful to mention things like this:
(http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/images/fetus_aborted03.jpg)
-
Um, what's distasteful about Angelfire.com?
-
Okay, so what is "pro choice" choosing if not to kill one's own child?
Hey, I'm all for choice! I think places like Baskin-Robbins are great!
But the euphamism here "right to choose" doesn't state what it is choosing. It conveniently leaves that part out, since it would be distasteful to mention things like this:
(http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/images/fetus_aborted03.jpg)
Nice try; I suspect if someone else tried that with some other subject you might have had a problem with it.
All I'm saying is that it seems like the rationale there. People who are pro-choice do not see it as the choice to kill a baby, just as people who are pro-life don't see it as the choice to force rape victims to bear their attacker's child.
I guess another way of putting it is, why don't defenders of the 2nd amendment say "I need the right to bear arms, so my 8 year old son can shoot his 6 year old sister in the mouth."
-
Um, what's distasteful about Angelfire.com?
God, EVERYTHING.
It's not a religious issue as much as a human rights issue.
This is exactly how I try to frame it, and exactly why I hate huge billboards with a crying Jesus and a fetus on them. Abortion shouldn't be a Christian issue, it shouldn't be a left or right issue, it should be a human issue. If we took all of the money that is spent on pro-life and pro-choice propaganda, etc., each year, and actually used it to try to change the situations that obviously lead to abortions (shitty economic conditions, shitty birth-control availability, shitty sex-ed), we might actually get somewhere.
Personally, I don't think that anyone really LIKES abortion. Nobody has ever been like, ABORTION TOTALLY KICKS ASS! Ben & Jerrys has never had to consider naming a flavor after abortion, because it's the general consensus that abortion is not a Good Thing. At best, abortion is a really, really horribly tough and painful decision for any woman to make. I just wish both sides would work together on keeping women from making that choice, not by making the choice illegal, but by making it so they NEVER HAVE TO MAKE IT.
But both sides love the abortion cow, don't they? They just keep milking it! Christ.
-
Smooth move, Jough.
I really, really don't see why you feel it's necessary to start this, though.
In fact, it rather pisses me off when any male decides that he's entitled to enter into this debate. When male impregnation gets past the Arnold-movie stage, I'd be more than happy to hear from you.
Also, Bozack, you are awesome.
-
In fact, it rather pisses me off when any male decides that he's entitled to enter into this debate.
It's funny, that's what I had been thinking. I wasn't getting involved, because it's nothing to do with me.
And yet, who is it that makes the decisions... I mean, guys, it's not like it's an issue we have to contend with.
It's like if men said 'sanitary products are morally wrong, they are now banned'.
Ugh.
(personally I hope that come the next election, when all the women who haven't had the choice, come back and kick ass)
-
So if that same kid beat his sister with a pool cue, you'd be arguing for pool cue control? Maybe you could sue CueTech or Predator or Tempest for marketing a lethal weapon? Not making it child-proof? Not containing sufficient warning?
Gun ownership is a responsibility. Just like driving or owning large growly dogs. People who FAIL in their responsibilities should be prosecuted and possibly lose some privileges, but don't focus on guns. Guns kill a lot less people in this country than driving or smoking. And both of those things, like guns, are still legal. As is abortion, and that probably should be legal and available because otherwise, illegal abortions will kill young women. Third trimester procedures are probably something else altogether, and should probably be a different discussion.
As for the abortion "argument", it is interesting to me that pro-choice people maintain a certain respectful vagueness around the issue of 'what to call it' and that's what Jough is pointing to. Sure, it would be basically impossible to build any polticial or social will around an argument that says "I want the right to choose to stop a biological process that will result in a human being" which is what it is regardless of when you decide to say there is a 'life' and to take away the charged word 'kill' which is an unfair term to use if you can't decide if there is 'life' in the first place. A big problem in this debate is an inability to agree on terms. Without that, it's political rhetoric on both sides and probably, as Cort points out with the theological argument, always will be.
Many abortions end pregnancies that are a result of irresponsible behavior. There is a need for both men and women and certainly boys and girls to comprehend the responsibility and potential consequences of unprotected sex (in terms of disease and conception) because the consequences become social as well as personal and, in the final analysis, the consequences affect all of us. Abortion is one consequence but not the first or most important one on my list - AIDS and other STDs, infertility, the number of unwanted or neglected children, drug-addicted children, children growing up in poverty, children who are supported by the government are bigger problems than abortion and clearly these problems are not being solved by abortion.
If we could somehow morally justify encouraging more responsible reproduction (separate from the issue of having sex), we could be better off. This could be an argument for long-term, stable relationships which some marriage proponents would use. I'm not going there, because it's a doomed argument, but I imagine the number of married women seeking abortion is pretty small compared to the unmarried, although I myself personally know at least one exception to this.
People interested in both a healthy society and money being spent on progressive programming like school improvements or health promotion should argue less about abortion (states don't pay for abortion, generally) and think about how to have less conceptions occur. It's a lot more financially sound in the long run, has less psychological cost than abortion and gives us something more positive to discuss instead of a polarizing issue to be 'for' or 'against'.
-
People interested in both a healthy society and money being spent on progressive programming like school improvements or health promotion should argue less about abortion (states don't pay for abortion, generally) and think about how to have less conceptions occur. It's a lot more financially sound in the long run, has less psychological cost than abortion and gives us something more positive to discuss instead of a polarizing issue to be 'for' or 'against'.
At last, something AD and I agree upon completely!
But, seriously, what's wrong with angelfire.com?
-
If we could somehow morally justify encouraging more responsible reproduction (separate from the issue of having sex), we could be better off.
I certainly agree with that. But of course, most of the people in the position to decide on abortion, feel that 'encouraging' foreplay or safe-sex is bad. It does seem to be no-win.
Yes, most abortions seem to be due to careless sex, but I don't see this as a reason to cause children to be born into uncaring, or unsuitably financed homes, and to (as mentioned by Bozack) force rape-victims to give birth to their attackers child. That is something I feel I have a right to say as a man when it comes to the issue.
Like politics and nigh on everything else happening in America, you cannot write the rulebooks based on religion, and yet it happens more and more.
Damnit, I was staying well away from this as well...
-
I think this:
So if that same kid beat his sister with a pool cue, you'd be arguing for pool cue control? Maybe you could sue CueTech or Predator or Tempest for marketing a lethal weapon? Not making it child-proof? Not containing sufficient warning?
refers to this:
I guess another way of putting it is, why don't defenders of the 2nd amendment say "I need the right to bear arms, so my 8 year old son can shoot his 6 year old sister in the mouth."
And if that's the case, I prefaced it with this:
All I'm saying is that it seems like the rationale there
for a reason. I'm note saying I feel one way or another, I'm saying when people discuss things like this, it does a disservice to put words into each others' mouths. I should have said that, in a similar sense to the earlier abortion discussion, people who are for gun control might say "why don't gun ownership advocates ever say the words that are missing in their argument . . . (guns are used for killing people).
It was sort of an over-the-top comparison, I guess.
My point is that people who support the right to choose to have an abortion might not think of it as killing a child (ya think?), they might think of it as disposing of a collection of cells, or something else. The phrase "the right to choose" leaves off "to kill one's own child" because the speaker of the first phrase does not necessarily think it makes logical sense to follow it with the second.
I'm going to try to avoid these in the future because I'm obviously disabled when it comes to getting my point across.
-
I'm hoping my other post finds it's way here.
I guess to me the difference is that gun control arguments, in general, can't be construed through rational logic to include a desire to kill a child (in the case of your purposely absurd argument) but Choice arguments, through relatively easy application of standard and commonly held definitions of words like 'life' and 'kill' actually do (if you belong to the other side).
Of course, people will argue about what those words mean in the context of a pro choice argument, but oddly the same words in other contexts have fairly easily grasped and concrete meanings. It's an interesting thing to debate.
The abortion issue will probably always come down to ideology. Humanism vs Theism. There will probably always be significant numbers of people on both sides in this country as well.
-
OK, now that I'm 50% in charge of this thread whose existence worries me a great deal, I would like to announce that I am going to try to resist the urge to wake up every couple of hours all night to see if it needs to be locked, and that I would very much appreciate it if you would all try not to make me sorry tomorrow that I didn't lock it before I went to bed. Thanks.
-
Can't move posts from thread to thread, I believe, but here's the text of your post:
Yes, most abortions seem to be due to careless sex, but I don't see this as a reason to cause children to be born into uncaring, or unsuitably financed homes, and to (as mentioned by Bozack) force rape-victims to give birth to their attackers child.
Perhaps not; however consider the number of children born into these same homes where abortion isn't considered. It seems somewhat strange to favorably compare not living to living regardless of the circumstances. People overcome their environments all the time. I was born before 1973; I was given up for adoption as a very small preemie on Christmas Day. I imagine that I could well have been aborted at some time in the future and I guess that certainly plays into my feelings about abortion and certainly makes it harder to be as moderate as I am on it.
That is something I feel I have a right to say as a man when it comes to the issue.
I think responsible members of society all have a voice in this divisive an issue. Also, where the sex was consensual and resulted in pregnancy there are many people who think that the father does have some rights - what if the couple is married, for instance - there is certainly no such thing as a black and white issue in this discussion.
Like politics and nigh on everything else happening in America, you cannot write the rulebooks based on religion, and yet it happens more and more.
Every body of law ever written down is derived from some sense of 'religion'. In the oldest times, leaders were Gods; we moved toward 'divine right' rulers and then on to more enlightened, humanistic eras where people like Rousseau and Locke and others debated the issue of where the 'right' to make and enforce law comes from. Some said it comes from divinity others say it comes from society itself.
If most of society has a sense of religious values through which they filter their decisions (particularly their voting decisions) then it becomes a circular argument - it works out to Divinity no matter how you slice it. I think the US founders had this view; that they were 'People of God' and that the laws come not from God himself but are derived from a sense of the kinds of values the society, in general, holds.
This works out pretty well until our society became more heterogenous. This is the challenge we as a nation face - how to discern just what the general, baseline values of the US are in 2004. This has to be discovered independently of how each individual derives/arrives at these values, because that is unimportant and actually divisive.
I doubt anyone tries to do this, but if they did it successfully, they wouldn't lose an election for a long time.
And don't worry, wombat, I'm uneasy about this thread too and I'll be keeping an eye on it as well.
-
I really only thought this was interesting because I had just had a discussion about this (more or less) with someone here at work. I think I re-stated my point in a somewhat clearer manner. The point is, I guess, that anything that has people so divided can almost always be re-stated by the "anti" forces in an inflammatory manner. Personally I liked talking about gay marriage more. But that's because I just love weddings.
-
OK, now that I'm 50% in charge of this thread whose existence worries me a great deal, I would like to announce that I am going to try to resist the urge to wake up every couple of hours all night to see if it needs to be locked, and that I would very much appreciate it if you would all try not to make me sorry tomorrow that I didn't lock it before I went to bed. Thanks.
I just want to say that the existence of this thread (along with the rest of the contentious political threads) worries me, too. There are 10 zillion places to discuss politics and one Achewood board. I wouldn't dream of censoring any of you, but I will entreat you to keep it civil, kind and friendly.
This is the last you'll see of me herein, other than to quote that obnoxious Farkism -- Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics...
-
Just to chime in:
I respect y'all's ability to keep this respectful and "clean," but I will be watching as well. Play nice.
Mod out.
-
Very very few abortions have anything to do with rape - but yes, it certainly would suck to be saddled with a baby after being raped. I guess killing your own child is the only revenge you can get for that, right?
And I also don't buy the "you're not a woman so you have no say in the matter" argument regarding infanticide. It's none of my business? I believe it is the duty of people of conscience to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.
I mean, I don't think you have any children, 'lucia, but if you saw a woman beating her child to death in front of you in the mall, I would expect that you'd be humane enough to either try to stop that violence or else find someone stronger who can put a stop to it.
Does child murder not matter to you just because it's sanctioned by the state? If rape were legalised would it be okay for people to rape you? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Abortion is a barbaric practise, especially abortions of convenience which are used as birth control due to carelessness and utter disregard for human life.
They say that you can judge a society based on how it treats its prisoners - but what about children? And at what point does the law allow for infant murder? Has this been tested in the courts?
Is it okay to murder a four year old? What about a four minute old? It probably would be considered murder. But shit, had you killed the baby five minutes before while only its head was sticking out of the womb, that's just late-term abortion - all nice and legal.
So where does it stop? I find it a bit sick that there are women (and men, of course) who don't believe in wearing fur or in medical testing on animals because of the cruelty to the cute little furry bunnies and such, but babies, meh, fuck them! I need my sleep!
-
zygote/embryo != baby
It's a little facile to condemn one side for using loaded words (e.g. "choice") when you are willing to equate every pregnancy with a baby. A baby is more than a clump of cells. Surely there's a gray area about when an embryo changes into a baby. But I cannot believe that every fertilized egg is equivalent to me or you. Also, if a fertilized egg is so sacred how do you justify the soul killing properties of: War, the Death Penalty, Pederast Spiritual Leaders, Ashlee Simpson, or Cubicle Farms?
"Pro-life" is an euphemism no more egregious than "Killing Babies."
Dammit, dammit, dammit! I swore I wouldn't get involved in this.
-
I suppose they could call pro-life "Pro not killing humans" to be more accurate, but pro-life is close enough.
And who said I justified war or the death penalty? I pretty much think that people killing each other is a bad thing in general.
Not that some people don't sometimes need to die. I suppose I could be convinced to join the abortion bandwagon if someone could convince me that some fetuses are evil and should be put down for the good of the herd.
-
some nights i wake up, and it's very very quiet and very very dark and i lay there and listen to my heart beat. i wonder who my mother was and i make up grand fantasies as to the circumstances she had been in: missouri, 1975, college town. the possibilities approach endless, yet the finality was binary: yes or no.
man have sperm, and women have eggs, and once you have one in each hand, you can put them together and make biology happen.
men, however, can't make the biology happen inside their bodies like women can.
in the world i would like to live in, a woman and a man would decide together to make a baby. they would decide, and then they would undergo a process (hopefully many times). then another process would occur, wherein the result would be a healthy baby born unto a happy world.
in the world i live in, decisions are not always made that are agreed upon by both parties. in the world i live in, a man can impregnate a woman and leave. a man can impregnate a woman, and leave the woman to deal with the consequences of those actions. the man can leave to go back with his ex-wife and the bundle of children that are his and are not his. the man can the the woman to deal with the consequences of their actions together, leave her to deal with those consequences when she is young and unable to deal with those consequences in a rational way. she turns to her mother, who does not take her medication regularly. the medication that let's her deal with consequences of actions in a rational way.
in the world i live in, babies are born to a world that hates them and doesn't take very good care of them.
i think, perhaps, phillipe, that may be the saddest thing.
-
some nights i wake up, and it's very very quiet and very very dark and i lay there and listen to my heart beat. i wonder who my mother was and i make up grand fantasies as to the circumstances she had been in: missouri, 1975, college town. the possibilities approach endless, yet the finality was binary: yes or no.
I used to do the same thing. I was >30 before I really found peace with my humble and unknown origins...25th December, 1967 my first Christmas on Earth and no parents or family. I got a family March 9 1968. I've occasionally been shitty to them over the years but for the most part, I am pretty sure I'm better off then I would have been.
-
Smooth move, Jough.
I really, really don't see why you feel it's necessary to start this, though.
In fact, it rather pisses me off when any male decides that he's entitled to enter into this debate.
I found the thread. So, sorry for posting in the other thread.
How can we not enter into the debate? Human and reproductive rights isn't a gender exclusive issue. In fact, I don't see how the partici##### in any debate, on anything, ever could limited to a gender or any group. I live in Utah, and I get really pissed off when the LDS church releases a statement concerning public policy, and the mormons get all uppity when local non-mormons comment on the statement. They say that what the church does or says doesn't effect non-mormons so the non-mormons should just shut the fuck up (they really say that). How the fuck does it not effect EVERYONE in the fuck*ng state (we live in a theocracy here in Utah, so trust me, it does)? It pisses me off when a group claims that outsiders can't comment on a debate that ostensibly only concerns that group.
-
Just wanted to say, props to Arkabee. I think you sad some good stuff there.
Now I'm going to go away and pretend this thread doesn't exist before it starts to affect how I think of people.
-
In fact, it rather pisses me off when any male decides that he's entitled to enter into this debate.
How can we not enter into the debate?
i'm of the mind such that i believe discussion is good, especially with parties who have opposing views. compassion, empathy, and a desire to understand are virtues to me.
if i were in a situation wherein a thing were being discussed, a thing that had direct consequences to me and the specific group i were in, i'm sure that i would feel negatively about those outside of the group acting as though they were directly affected by those consequences and voicing their opinion as though their opinion were authority. to whit, if the neighborhood i lived in was discussing whether or not to have a landfill built within it, my neighboars and i would be Directly and Immediately affected by the consequences of a landfill being built. The Sweet and Sickening smell of garbage is an odor that does not leave my mind, having been a garbage man. To have that odor permeate my daily life would make it hard to live. To have someone from the next county say "the need for me to have a place to put my trash far away from me so i do not have to smell it outweighs the need for you to be happy and not smell the smell of garbage that makes you irrationaly sad" would make me want to hit someone with a hammer.
However, it would be naive and short-sighted of me to say that while i and my neighbors were directly affected by the discussion (or "debate" if you would) that noone outside of our neighborhood were affected by any consequence of said discussion. those people not in our neighborhood still need a place to put their trash.
However, those outside the neighborhood must keep in mind that the consequences that they must deal with are NOT EQUAL TO the consequences that my neighbors and i must deal with.
--
I got a family March 9 1968. I've occasionally been shitty to them over the years but for the most part, I am pretty sure I'm better off then I would have been.
indeed.
--
But the euphamism here "right to choose" doesn't state what it is choosing. It conveniently leaves that part out, since it would be distasteful to mention things like this:
you are concerned with what is left OFF the end of that statement, "right to choose", but do not seem to be overly concerned with what is left off the BEGINNING of that statement.
It's only recently that killing a child of the wrong gender or due to inconvenience has even been an issue. But is the practise any less barbaric because it's how things "used to be"?
It's also only recently that Women were acknowledged by our nation as having the right to vote.
and it was recently acknowledged that Women were productive in factory work in times of National Security (wwII).
and it is VERY RECENT that women, on average, expect to earn LESS than men, on average, for the same work.
i like to counter my own vagueness in regards to generalizations by offering anecdotes from my reality:
for a long time i worked at a small (very) ISP (amongst other things). The techs employed there would spend a great deal of time on the telephone with a great number of different people.
It happened more often than i would ever have (previous to working there) imagined, that some of the techs who were ladies would furiously ask me to take over the call she was on. Take over the call, because the call could not be resolved. why could the call not be resolved? because the customer requested to speak to a MAN in regards to their problems, because a WOMAN was unable to help them.
each case of this, i noticed that the WOMAN'S troubleshooting and determination of issue was CORRECT and VALID and the recommendation for resolution they had offered was CORRECT and VALID.
The world is a far better place than it WAS, but it is far from Perfect.
"A woman's" "right to choose".
I believe, Jough, that if your prepend "right to choose" as such, then things like:
Phrases like "The Right to Choose" always leave off the ever-descriptive "... to kill one's own child" at the end of it.
might make more sense to you.
Because, you are correct (coming from your WorldView), that when applied to Abortion, there is a phrase being left off.
But you seem unaware or unable/unwilling to discuss that "The Right To Choose" is about more than just Abortion, and is "The Woman's Right To Choose", a phrase that _is_, as you posit, PURPOSEFULLY left unfinished, because it applies to everything in a woman's life.
Sadly, abortion has "usurped" the phrase because "Why won't you just fuck*ng treat me fairly in our society" just doesn't have the ring to it that "A Woman's right To Choose" does.
-
I had to see what you said, Ark...
I love you and want to take you home to meet my folks!!!!!!
*ahem*
You're my new interweb hero I think.
-
Loaded words
Loaded words
Loaded words
Loaded words
Loaded words
I really expect better from people on this forum when we are discussing subjects with this much weight. It's funny, this is exactly the flip side of your original point, and it seems as though you can't see that.
-
Half Time!
People are doing very well. AlohaDawg is well reasoned, arkabee is poetic and beautiful, the mods are worried but letting us continue. It's great!
BUT
We've a couple of fouls on the field. Jough, I mostly agree with what you are saying, but the way in which you are conducting yourself is embarrassing. I know I'm not the boss of you, and I don't really have any authority to hand out kudos and jeers (furthermore nobody asked me), but come on, dude.
1. You attempted to post what I can only assume to be a gut-wrenching emotional image which was probably also way gross in what is otherwise a reasoned debate. I call foul. Ten yards. We all know what we're discussing. I'd be upset if you posted pictures of motorcycle accidents or the Cure just because we're talking about those subjects.
2. "but yes, it certainly would suck to be saddled with a baby after being raped. I guess killing your own child is the only revenge you can get for that, right?" If someone is in this circumstance, and they've made this decision, they're already double-scarred. Your caustic phrasing while humorous in other situations here amounts to kicking someone while they're down. Personal foul. Fifteen yard penalty, and lose a down. This could be rephrased as "I know the 'pregnancy' to be a child, a child is not responsible for her father's actions and should not be terminated because of them." Something like that. You can be clear without hurting people, some of which might have had to go through this.
Is there anyone tall around? I need help getting off this damned high-hoss now.
-
That is what I was trying to say.
-
Hate to jump in again wearing the Mod Hat, but yeah -- Pedro speaks the truth. I'm heartened to see a lot of people discuss this topic with respect and valid argumentation, and I'd like to see it continue, which means that everyone needs to rise to the same level of respect or leave.
That's all, folks.
-
How can we not enter into the debate?
i'm of the mind such that i believe discussion is good, especially with parties who have opposing views. compassion, empathy, and a desire to understand are virtues to me.
if i were in a situation wherein a thing were being discussed, a thing that had direct consequences to me and the specific group i were in, i'm sure that i would feel negatively about those outside of the group acting as though they were directly affected by those consequences and voicing their opinion as though their opinion were authority. to whit, if the neighborhood i lived in was discussing whether or not to have a landfill built within it, my neighboars and i would be Directly and Immediately affected by the consequences of a landfill being built. The Sweet and Sickening smell of garbage is an odor that does not leave my mind, having been a garbage man. To have that odor permeate my daily life would make it hard to live. To have someone from the next county say "the need for me to have a place to put my trash far away from me so i do not have to smell it outweighs the need for you to be happy and not smell the smell of garbage that makes you irrationaly sad" would make me want to hit someone with a hammer.
However, it would be naive and short-sighted of me to say that while i and my neighbors were directly affected by the discussion (or "debate" if you would) that noone outside of our neighborhood were affected by any consequence of said discussion. those people not in our neighborhood still need a place to put their trash.
However, those outside the neighborhood must keep in mind that the consequences that they must deal with are NOT EQUAL TO the consequences that my neighbors and i must deal with.
Right. But if it is the case that fetuses have a right to life, then it's a human rights issue, not just a reproductive rights issue, so my stakes are just as high in the debate as they would be in a debate about genocide in Africa (and I think they are pretty high there, though obviously not as high as the victims themselves). Just because I'm not a potential mother or a fetus anymore doesn't mean that I can't have a say. And I think it's far from decided whether fetuses have a right to life. In fact, and I could be way off, but I believe in Germany they do, and there is a process in which a guardian is appointed to the fetus, to argue for it. It's for show, from what I understand, but it's a different approach than in other places in the world where abortion is acceptable, where the right of the mother to choose completely trumps the right of the fetus to live. To be clear, I'm not arguing for either side here, in fact I am much more sympathetic to the mother's right to choose, but it's far from decided.
-
This is a message board where we discuss a cartoon. If you can't be flip about baby murder, I don't know what the hell you can be flip about. I'm just trying to keep my posts from becoming too angry.
And ark, I'd be all for a woman's right to choose her own destiny as long as you'd concede that a baby (which will eventually become a man or a woman) has that same right.
It's not a woman's right to choose that's even the issue - it's the rights of the CHILD I'm taking about.
Women have historically have had a difficult time in being able to express themselves or choose their own destinies without being subject to outward pressures, intimidation, and sometimes physical injury or death. This is unfortunate and of course is a black eye on the success of human achievement as a whole.
Babies, on the other hand are utterly UNABLE to express themselves, fight for their own rights, or stop their own mothers from exterminating them.
Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby. But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own? Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder. But I guess you're in the clear."
Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.
-
Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.
When did late-term abortion become the issue here? Scarcely anywhere (at least not any of the Morganthaler clinics in Canada) will perform them.
-
Yeah, Jough, we (or was I alone) were not talking about late term. I was just discussing whether it should be illegalised at all. I disagree with late term abortion, but here in the UK late term abortions are illegal except under the most specialised circumstances (only medical as far as I know). Seems to be working out fine over here, but then we're probably all atheist scum in the eyes of Bush and his croonies.
Anyway, this time I'm staying out of it!
-
Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby. But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own? Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder. But I guess you're in the clear."
Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.
Do you just not want to admit that some people don't see this as baby murder? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
-
I think you're being obtuse.
The core of my point is at what point does it become baby murder?
If people that support abortion believe that late term (i.e. third trimester) is wrong, then at what point is it okay? Would a week earlier be okay?
And if so, isn't that just a technicality?
Again, people supporting abortion seem to cite the law, which isn't in question. 150 years ago women did not have the right to vote or own property. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do these things now?
The line where you can dehumanise someone/thing is a fine one. Why is it okay to kill a three month old fetus but not okay to kill a 34 year old woman?
For those who believe abortion is a-okay - where do you draw the line?
-
I guess killing your own child is the only revenge you can get for that, right?
Does child murder not matter to you just because it's sanctioned by the state?
But shit, had you killed the baby five minutes before while only its head was sticking out of the womb, that's just late-term abortion - all nice and legal.
. . . but babies, meh, fuck them! I need my sleep!
I mis-read your posts. It seemed to me that you had already decided that anytime after conception, fetus=baby. Since you still have not decided at what point abortion=baby murder, I apologize.
-
So that's where I call the line, at ~12 weeks.
I used to think this. Having seen my 12 week old baby looking extremely human in ultrasound, now I'm not so sure. Actually, my standard used to be, does it have a brain, because I believe self=mind=brain.
I won't bother detailing my current position on abortion, because it is ludicrous science fiction, but it was the only way I could think of that didn't violate someone's rights.
-
I'm not exactly sure where my line is. The point, however, is that I should be able to decide where my line is, not the government.
That's not to suggest that I believe in full-term abortions -- There is a place for some reasonable limitation on when abortion is appropriate. After viability, for instance. However, prior to that point I think there's a huge gray area that involves one's personal morals and philosophy. Where reasonable people can differ, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to impose one set of moral values on all of us.
-
The core of my point is at what point does it become baby murder?
indeed, a good question.
perhaps the question could also be phrased:
at what point does it become a baby?
because that certainly would help determine at what point it becomes "baby murder".
and if it turns out that it does not become a baby until X period of time into the pregnancy, then you'll have to come up with another incindiary phrase for abortions prior to X period of time into a pregnancy.
what does spermacide do to the baby making process?
what do birth control pills do to the baby making process?
if a woman has a misscarriage, did her body undergo an abortion on of its own biological mandate? a misscarriage is certainly an aborted pregnancy. is her uterus a baby killer, and as such as the controller of her uterus is she a baby killer?
i don't know at what point it becomes baby murder, because i do not know at what point it becomes a baby.
It's not a woman's right to choose that's even the issue - it's the rights of the CHILD I'm taking about.
but we aren't even sure at what point it becomes a BABY let alone a CHILD.
and what rights _do_ a child have?
are we talking universal civil rights, or specific national rights? the right to live or die? the right to starve to death? the right to be carpet bombed when you are outside playing with your friends?
or perhaps the right to be brought up thinking that irrational hatred based upon a person's skin color (a seemingly existent "right" here-bouts.)? or the right to be left to the state for care in an orphanage or adoption? or the right to be raised by a television set?
or the right to be ignorant and have the void that ignorance makes filled piece at a time ladled from the cup of knowledge? or the right to have limited responsibilities due to incapacity to make reasoned decisions? or the right to work in a factory as soon as physically able?
or the right to be entirely dependent upon others for their own survival?
it would seem to me that a CHILD'S rights are a discussion worthy of its own context, not intermixed with the emotional fervor eminating from the discussion of when does it become baby murder.
And ark, I'd be all for a woman's right to choose her own destiny as long as you'd concede that a baby (which will eventually become a man or a woman) has that same right.
i can not concede that a baby has the right to choose its own destiny, because i do not believe that that is a universal right; for if i were to believe that, then surely i must fall upon the deepest depression since the world that i live in has surely stripped all babies of that "right", and a world where the universe itself can strip all of humanity of a universal right is surely not a world fit for humanity to live.
i feel that with rights come responsibilities, and an infant/baby/child can have no universal responsibilities to the world or to society, for HOW COULD IT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT UPON ITS RESPONSIBILITIES?
It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.
so, it would appear, jough, as though you will not "concede" "a woman's right to choose her own destiny".
Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby. But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own? Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder. But I guess you're in the clear."
I believe that i understand, possibly, where you are coming from if not exactly what you are trying to say.
I agree, jough, that "killin' babies" is a BAD THING. however, i do not see it from the perspective that babies have rights, per se, so much as parents have RESPONSIBILITIES. responsibilities to themselves, to their children, to society, etc.
that being said, i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood". and upon reaching that "stage", achieves both its RIGHTS and its RESPONSIBILITIES.
the specific time frame of "upon reaching "adulthood"" would seem to be a discussion in and of itself, as well...
-
Where reasonable people can differ, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to impose one set of moral values on all of us.
i'd like to take a moment of everyone's time to state that i agree 100% with this statement.
-
As Jough says, this is a messageboard where we discuss a cartoon. I've never done this before, but I think this has gone far enough and I'm going to lock it. If one of the other mods wants to open it up, go ahead, as long as you want to keep monitoring it without me.
-
It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.
Well, this is where I (and U.S. law) differ from you, then.
I believe you also wrote that you did not think that people did not become sovereign entities with human rights until they reached emotional or mental adulthood, in which case I would say you should probably be careful about killing Adam Sandler because you'll probably see at least SOME jail time for his murder.
There's no sense in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that a seven year old girl should not be killed because she's not a person in your eyes (not being an adult yet).
You're hard-core, buddy. Even Dick Cheney is going "Whoa, that's fuck*ng harsh!"
-
It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.
Well, this is where I (and U.S. law) differ from you, then.
So, you do not believe and/or US law does not state that:
1) it is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child
2) it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of
?
Wow, that's pretty hard-core, man. You must be a roll model for every teen mother who dumps her baby in an alley....
I believe you also wrote that you did not think that people did not become sovereign entities with human rights until they reached emotional or mental adulthood,
believe what you will. the text of what i wrote is on your disk space, though:
that being said, i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood". and upon reaching that "stage", achieves both its RIGHTS and its RESPONSIBILITIES.
note: no use of the phrase "human rights" but usage of the word "rights".
theory: use of word "rights" to convey meaning different than "human rights".
support of theory: from 2 sections prior to quote:
and what rights _do_ a child have?
are we talking universal civil rights, or specific national rights?
asking for clarification of which rights children were in question of having.
in which case I would say you should probably be careful about killing Adam Sandler because you'll probably see at least SOME jail time for his murder.
please show me where you believe i said i was going to, or advocated, killing anyone.
There's no sense in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that a seven year old girl should not be killed because she's not a person in your eyes (not being an adult yet).
person!=adult
i was never arguing, i was attempting to discuss. no sense in discussing with someone hell-bent on arguing.
please show me where you believe i said i felt a seven year old girl should not be killed.
(edit= that _should_ say "should be killed". )
You're hard-core, buddy. Even Dick Cheney is going "Whoa, that's fuck*ng harsh!"
indeed.
-
from right before the thread was locked:
"
The line where you can dehumanise someone/thing is a fine one. Why is it okay to kill a three month old fetus but not okay to kill a 34 year old woman?
i will not state that it is "okay to kill a three month old fetus", which is what you would have me do by phrasing your question the way that you have.
there are a number of reasons why it is not okay to kill an adult of any age or any gender, just as there are a number of reasons as to why it IS okay to kill such an adult. however, just because there are reasons to do something does not make such a thing universally okay. for instance, a reason to kill an adult would be as penalty for crime, a la "death penalty". that would be a reason, and in some ways of thinking would make the killing "okay".
however, i take your question to mean the killing of "innocents", since you juxtapose a 34 year old woman against a baby, wherein a baby is a cultural pillar of presumed innocence.
to further pull at the thread, why is it ok to kill an animal and not a human? why is it ok to kill some animals, but not others? don't kill the fluffy bunny (which is a "useless" animal: no milk, no eggs, shits everywhere and is rather poor companionship, problems with population control, etc) but kill the moo cow and eat 'em or wear 'em (while alive they provide fertilizer and milk [and cheese, etc]). [and yes, the rabbit produces "shit" and the cow produces "fertilizer". such are my cultural worldviews].
if you want to make a declaration that it is not okay to kill a baby, then do so, by all means! but a baby is _not_ a 34 year old woman, nor is it a rabbit nor a cow.
having said all that, do you really want the reasoning behind the not okay-ness of killing a 34 year old woman discussed, or do you want to go back to the discussion of when is it "killing babies"?
"
jough, i'm not arguing, i'm discussing.
if you don't feel like discussing, that's cool, just say you don't feel like discussing, just don't accuse me of trying to kill adam sandler.
jeeze, i thought little nicky was kind of funny.
-
Er, no disrespect meant to whoever unlocked this, but I'm going to have to ask that everyone respect wombat's choice to keep this locked, plz. At this point any outlying points can be taken to PM.
-
I guess I will have the last word in this thread, then, since I can post even if the thread is locked.
I will restrain myself to only replying to comments given under direct testimony.
i can not concede that a baby has the right to choose its own destiny, because i do not believe that that is a universal right; for if i were to believe that, then surely i must fall upon the deepest depression since the world that i live in has surely stripped all babies of that "right", and a world where the universe itself can strip all of humanity of a universal right is surely not a world fit for humanity to live.
Well, the U.S. was founded under the belief (thanks to John Locke) that humans have the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Murder (I'll define murder in this context as "one sentient entity willfully ending the life of another sentient entity) would undoubtedly curtail those rights. These rights are not issued to us by our government - they are inalienable HUMAN rights - they cannot be taken away - some would say that they cannot even be issued away (although wouldn't not having the right to give up your rights cut into your liberty?).
Human's rights can't be stripped - but of course they can be violated. Wouldn't a sovereign entity's life being ended without its consent be a human rights violation? (this question is purely rhetorical due to the locked thread).
i feel that with rights come responsibilities
No, you can have rights without responsibilities. You have no responsibility for staying alive even though you have a right to life.
i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood".
So wouldn't the inverse of your argument (and you are making an argument even if you do not think you are - I'm sure dictionary.com can help out with these terms if you want to bicker about basic english rather than the issues at hand) be that children are not "sovereign entities" and thus not subject to basic human rights? Without that distinction, that a child/baby/toddler/etc. is a human with inalienable rights, then what stops you from killing one in a crowded theatre if it's noisy?
I suppose I just find it ironic that a high percentage of peta members are also pro-abortion. I guess babies aren't as cute as bunnies to some people and thus are less deserving of life.
On that note...
-
Jough, that was a kinda low thing to do.
-
Rather. Could we please attempt to have a little dignity about the situation?
-
Hey, I didn't lock it!