Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jay-ell]

Honest and sincerely held opinions differ on that question.  That's the problem.

That's not the problem. That's the dividing line, for me, between pro-life and pro-choice. (Those are terrible labels, BTW. Who is actually anti-life?)

The point is, it's OK, even preferable, to have people on both sides of that line. But it's also important to remember that both positions are valid. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we shouldn't bother talking. Which I think is what rubbed me the wrong way about what Nabu said here:

There is no way for me to see anything on the other side in a positive light

It bugs me that we are so polarized that we can't look objectively at the issue and say from the pro-life side, "I believe abortion is horrible, but maybe making it illegal isn't the best way to eliminate it (viz. the war on drugs). Or, on the pro-choice side, "You know what, you have a point. I think women should have the right to choose, but maybe we should consider how we as a nation might give women some better options -- more choices before conception -- that might prevent some of these unnecessary abortions."

I don't expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with me on everything (or anything). But I think it's important to talk about where we can find some common ground (better access to healthcare and birth control benefits everyone) even if the philosophies that got us there are different. I know that many people do not believe that life begins at conception, or that the well-being of the mother outweighs the life of the child. I don't understand it, but I acknowledge it and don't expect to change it.

I won't waste my breath trying to convert people to my way of thinking. I am about building a coalition to benefit the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time. The path of least resistance -- the largest positive course of action on which the majority can agree.

In the end, I don't care what you believe or why you believe it, as long as you vote for my guy on election day.

[wombat]

JL, in this case like others, your problem is that you are a reasonable person who holds opinions and beliefs that are unfortunately supported by a large number of very loud, very unreasonable people who pretty clearly have other underlying agendas. It's obviously a very frustrating position to be in.

[littlefallsmets]

In short, as I say few things shortly, I believe that to take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy upon her choosing is to make women's rights fundamentally unequal and impaired.

Because to force a woman to be burdened with eighteen years of responsibility because of a rape or a protection failure or a youthful mistake is to create a means to shackle the rights of any woman of birthing age at any time. It becomes a weapon of men to negate any and all women's rights with what can be a few minutes of a biological act.

I am unnerved by the idea of terminating a ball of cells that might one day eventually be human, of course, but weighed against the rights of 51% of the population, which is more important ethically becomes clear to me.

Difficult but clear nonetheless.

[jay-ell]

JL, in this case like others, your problem is that you are a reasonable person who holds opinions and beliefs that are unfortunately supported by a large number of very loud, very unreasonable people who pretty clearly have other underlying agendas. It's obviously a very frustrating position to be in.

I have often said that people ought to have to pass an IQ test before they agree with me in public. This would solve a lot of my problems in life.

In short, as I say few things shortly, I believe that to take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy upon her choosing is to make women's rights fundamentally unequal and impaired.

Because to force a woman to be burdened with eighteen years of responsibility because of a rape or a protection failure or a youthful mistake is to create a means to shackle the rights of any woman of birthing age at any time. It becomes a weapon of men to negate any and all women's rights with what can be a few minutes of a biological act.

I am unnerved by the idea of terminating a ball of cells that might one day eventually be human, of course, but weighed against the rights of 51% of the population, which is more important ethically becomes clear to me.

Difficult but clear nonetheless.

There is no reason why the fathers of these children shouldn't also be held responsible. The inequity is not that the women are held responsible, but that men, all to often, are not.

[Nabubrush]

That's not the problem. That's the dividing line, for me, between pro-life and pro-choice. (Those are terrible labels, BTW. Who is actually anti-life?)

The point is, it's OK, even preferable, to have people on both sides of that line. But it's also important to remember that both positions are valid. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we shouldn't bother talking. Which I think is what rubbed me the wrong way about what Nabu said here:

I said something about not being able to see the other side in any kind of positive light.

I should not have even started this topic, and I knew better. JL, you are not "the other side" being referred to in my post. I know it is pretty normal to see this as being divided up into pro/anti or pro/pro, depending on which side you are on, but that's not the division I was trying to address.

The other side I was talking about was the people who want to de-fund contraception, de-fund AIDS screening, make it impossible for people to use private insurance for their own care, don't want to prevent teen pregnancy, would rather defer spending money now and don't care that we'll have to spend four times as much later on unwanted pregnancies, would rather de-fund counseling and education, annual exams, screenings for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, and hypertension and blood pressure so they can zap funding for contraception, because it's so fuck*ng evil and morally wrong.

If that is you, then I guess we're on opposite sides. If that isn't you, then I guess I wasn't talking about you. If it sounds like I'm a little stirred, it's because those fuck*ng bastards do things like this and when you and I feel like we're on opposite sides, they win. And that really pisses me off. I do think we can have fruitful discussions, but please don't read what I said as saying that I don't think there's anything positive in your position, because I wasn't talking about you.

Now, if y'all want to talk about the larger issues pro v. con, that's fine with me, but that's not why I posted this and I'm including me out.

[littlefallsmets]

On the perfect world where men could be forced to follow through on the responsibility of their children, I would certainly re-evaluate my position.

I imagine a lot of political stances would need to be re-examined in a utopia such as that.

However, on this Earth and in this America, our system of law does not counter-balance the biological endentured servitude of motherhood very well at all and I doubt that day will come any time soon.

[wombat]

What Ash said. Whoa, did I really just say that?

[jay-ell]

[stuff]

Thanks for clarifying. I jumped the gun and read between the lines and executed all kinds of other cliche metaphors, and I promise I will settle down and try to be reasonable now.

The people of whom you speak, who do not see the connection between (abstinence-only sex ed, reducing access to birth control, etc) and (teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, STI infection rates) make me want to stab myself in the eye. Cause and effect, people. It's fundamental.

[Doc]

What went through my hung-over day-after-exams mind after I dragged myself out of bed at 1:30 in the afternoon and ate my breakfast bacon:

'Title X? Huh... this must be an old thread, no way a new topic gets to three pages in one day.'
*opens thread*
'Ooooooooh.'

You are all very reasonable people and I wish it was you guys making these decisions instead of everyone else.

make me want to stab myself in the eye. Cause and effect, people. It's fundamental.

Stab them maybe? That'd be some cause and effect.

[miles]

Plus, condoms and pills for everybody. Rock on my Miggroids.

I'm otherwise ignoring this thread, but want to point out that while Asherdan may not exactly be pro-choice, he's definitely pro-boning.

[miles]

I will say, as I stated above, that I support improved access to emergency contraceptives, like the "morning-after pill."

I lied.

Thank god for that pill and Planned Parenthood for providing it on very short notice. It's much easier to talk a Mormon into taking Plan B than getting an abortion, and I ain't a salesman.

[Nabubrush]

Thanks for clarifying. I jumped the gun and read between the lines and executed all kinds of other cliche metaphors, and I promise I will settle down and try to be reasonable now.

The people of whom you speak, who do not see the connection between (abstinence-only sex ed, reducing access to birth control, etc) and (teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, STI infection rates) make me want to stab myself in the eye. Cause and effect, people. It's fundamental.

I appreciate you doing this. Thank you. I think part of the problem is that (those people) like to use hot-button issues to rally people to their cause and get things accomplished in this back-handed way. These foofaraws also serve to muddy the water and get people stirred up and arguing over other things so they don't pay quite as close attention to the way things (civil rights, the american way, etc) are getting eroded.

[pmcd9]

Welp, we talked ourselves off of that ledge.  Good job people.

[Lister]

Sigh.

I hate that the level of political discourse in this country has gotten so low that people who agree more than they disagree can still yell at each other for hours, and then feel even more justified in entrenching themselves in their position when they're done.

Note: this isn't what just happened here.  What happened here required all parties to think rationally and respond to things the other parties actually said, not what was inferred.  This, unfortunately, doesn't happen all that much any more.