Abortion

[Marisa]

>>What makes the anti-choice crowd seem so intellectually dishonest is that many who hold such views are also against contraceptives.<<

No, you need to be specific in your charges. Who is against artificial contraceptives? Essentially only Catholic teaching and devout Catholics. That is because we are convinced that God’s wisdom far surpasses man’s wisdom. God created man and sexuality and for its intended purposes to create life. But if you want to play the defiant creature and tell God he does not exist and if he does you do not care what he thinks, well, you were given free will to do so.

Please re-read my comment. I mentioned 3 names, only 1 of which is catholic. But, this comment is easily dismissed because I don't give a flying fig what your god says to you or about me, or about the "purpose" of sex, of which procreation is secondary, and that my friend is science.

>>For many, it's far and above about shaming women who are sexually active than any feigned concern for a fetus.<<

You sound pretty inane here, IMO. You do all you can to make this “fetus” be some kind of incidental in all this. You try so hard to pretend that human life is just some chance happenstance that once was nothing more than some algae in the water and over time, voila! we have created a human. And we are expected to be impressed with your knowledge and resolutions?

I'm confident in my moral agency. You're welcome to be impressed by whatever you choose. Just don't make the mistake of thinking it somehow has relevance to anyone but you.

>>We know this because when a young woman has the unmitigated gall to address congress and speak for greater access to contraceptives, pundits like Rush Limbaugh go on tirades calling her a prostitute and demanding to see sex tapes.<<

Don’t make me laugh. I should feel worse for a college student who wants "greater access to contraceptives" (LOL) but who really wants the government to pay for her pills or condoms and sexual fun, than I should for a baby ripped apart in its mother’s womb? Yes, you surely strike me as the compassionate one here.

Spoken like someone ignorant of the fact that contraceptives have applications beyond pregnancy prevention. And of the fact that contraceptive availability has the single largest impact on the rate of elective abortions. Congratulations, you've just proved every word of my post.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

>>What makes the anti-choice crowd seem so intellectually dishonest is that many who hold such views are also against contraceptives.<<

No, you need to be specific in your charges. Who is against artificial contraceptives? Essentially only Catholic teaching and devout Catholics. That is because we are convinced that God’s wisdom far surpasses man’s wisdom. God created man and sexuality and for its intended purposes to create life. But if you want to play the defiant creature and tell God he does not exist and if he does you do not care what he thinks, well, you were given free will to do so.

Right. I am thankful I live in a secular society where I can choose my happiness, safety, and sanity as far away from religious dogma as possible.

>>For many, it's far and above about shaming women who are sexually active than any feigned concern for a fetus.<<

You sound pretty inane here, IMO. You do all you can to make this “fetus” be some kind of incidental in all this. You try so hard to pretend that human life is just some chance happenstance that once was nothing more than some algae in the water and over time, voila! we have created a human. And we are expected to be impressed with your knowledge and resolutions?

Eloquently deflecting again from any concern for a woman's health and autonomy. Or maybe not so eloquently deflecting.

Saying this again...it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating it isn't considered as deserving of autonomy as somebody else.

Pro-choice folks usually agree on one thing...women are human and are entitled to deciding what happens inside their bodies as much as any other human being.

Can't say as much for anti-choice people. Usually a woman has to be victimized "enough" to warrant deciding whether or not her reproductive organs are hers..finally.

>>We know this because when a young woman has the unmitigated gall to address congress and speak for greater access to contraceptives, pundits like Rush Limbaugh go on tirades calling her a prostitute and demanding to see sex tapes.<<

Don’t make me laugh. I should feel worse for a college student who wants "greater access to contraceptives" (LOL) but who really wants the government to pay for her pills or condoms and sexual fun, than I should for a baby ripped apart in its mother’s womb? Yes, you surely strike me as the compassionate one here.

Sexism. It does an anti-choice stance good.

 

[Nietzsche]

Of course I get it. You use terms that bring to mind women tied down for nine months, like something out of the Matrix or Coma.

You use terms like "forced to carry it to term" and I use terms like "legal status making it non-legal to terminate". Can we find a happy middle ground? It seems a dilemma, and I'm indeed open here, but can we find a way where BOTH parties have their rights protected? The mother's right to freedom and body freedom and the child's right to live?

The best, most ideal solution would be artificial wombs. They're certainly on the horizon but I'm not sure exactly how close they are. Until then, I still say there are only two fair options;

1. Abortion as defined in Roe vs Wade.

or

2. Illegal abortion, but with the financial burden(medical bills, all expenses related to pregnancy including maternity clothing, food, recovery from pregnancy, ect) put on society rather than the unwilling mother, and once the child itself is born society also pays to raise & take care of it for however long that is.

Those are the only fair options given the circumstances, namely a woman who does not want children.

 

[JoStories]

Of course I get it. You use terms that bring to mind women tied down for nine months, like something out of the Matrix or Coma.

You use terms like "forced to carry it to term" and I use terms like "legal status making it non-legal to terminate". Can we find a happy middle ground? It seems a dilemma, and I'm indeed open here, but can we find a way where BOTH parties have their rights protected? The mother's right to freedom and body freedom and the child's right to live?

Frankly, no. You would have forced me to carry a rapists' child to term. That would have made me an incubator for a parasite. In this case, there's simply no middle ground. Period.

 

[SomeRandom]

Don’t make me laugh. I should feel worse for a college student who wants "greater access to contraceptives" (LOL) but who really wants the government to pay for her pills or condoms and sexual fun, than I should for a baby ripped apart in its mother’s womb? Yes, you surely strike me as the compassionate one here.

Uhh, you do realize that the pill is commonly prescribed to women who often have irregular and extremely painful periods as well as a myriad of illnesses (one particularly life threatening just FYI) associated with their menstrual cycle, right?
Hell, they are known to lower risk of developing certain Cancers! Not only that but they are taken to reduce the risk of breast and ovarian cysts, Pelvic Inflammatory Disorder and even to reduce the risk of pregnancy developing in the fallopian tube (also known as an Ectopic Pregnancy or "Hedgehog Baby.")
They are a form of legitimate medication used by Doctors frequently. To deny a woman this based on the fact that some people happen to also use it for contraception is nothing but an exasperated attempt to try to appear legitimate when you claim to be "restricting access to free and consequence free sex." Yeah, no that should actually read "restricting access to female sexuality based on my archaic ideas of the role of women and my extremely limited knowledge about women's health issues." You do know that you are essentially objecting to access to Medication, don't you?

Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill

Other Reasons to Take the Pill

10 most common birth control pill side effects - Medical News Today (Yes, before you say anything there are side affects to the pill, like every other type of medicine in the world.)

At the very least "The Pill" should be easily and widely available. Why? Well not only does it have all sorts of health benefits, but it also treats an array of medical ailments AND reduces the amount of elective abortions. You'd think with this sort of information any rational person on the "Pro Life" side would be absolutely clamoring for it to be widely available everywhere. If they do indeed ONLY care about preventing abortions and nothing else. Aside from the Catholics who at least have a religious excuse, why isn't this seemingly the case?
This is why people on the Pro Choice side are awfully suspicious of underlying reasons the Pro Life side have, especially in relation to female sexuality and freedom/access to health care options.

Is Viagra treated the same in the US? Just curious.

 

[McBell]

Murder is a term found in the Bible also, which contains both moral and legal codes. I don't want to argue about words with you in this case, because I know murder is wrong whether or not the murderer is caught or receive the full penalty of earthly law.

The fact of the matter is that murder is a legal term.
Using it to appeal to emotions is dishonest.
How does your deity feel about dishonesty?

 

[McBell]

Secular or religious, Marisa, we both agree murder is wrong. I know this.

We also disagree on whether abortion and at what stage/month/time of pregnancy abortion might be a murder. Maturity has to do with allowing for others' consciences, too. You might say mine is the weaker faith, the weaker conscience. But when babies are termed it hurts me. I understand mothers could suffer from a pregnancy, but when the mothers suffer from the abortion trauma it also bothers me. What should I do? What are your recommendations for me?

My first recommendation is to get the terminology correct.

As long as you are being dishonest with the terminology, it is rather difficult to take you seriously

 

[Mister Emu]

For your analogy to work, abortion (or murder) would have to be not inherently evil.

One of the other posters in this thread brought up the distinction between "malum prohibitum" (evil because it has been prohibited) and "malum in se" (evil in and of itself). Your analogy ONLY works for malum prohibitum.

It is inherently evil for humans.

Of course, but I don't think you can avoid this conclusion.

How many African children did you kill through starvation today?

What makes the anti-choice crowd seem so intellectually dishonest is that many who hold such views are also against contraceptives.

So, where is the intellectual dishonesty inherent here? You know, you actually have to show it and not just claim it.

 

[Marisa]

So, where is the intellectual dishonesty inherent here? You know, you actually have to show it and not just claim it.

That would be in the FACT that the single biggest impact on the reduction of elective abortions is access to contraceptives. Since I've already mentioned this in a previous post, as have other commentors, I felt it was intellectually insulting to repeat myself and others. Pardon me for expecting that participants in the conversation will feel as compelled to keep up with it as I do.

FYI: If you're going to take the snarky tact, make sure that's actually the ground on which you currently reside.

 

[Mister Emu]

That would be in the FACT that the single biggest impact on the reduction of elective abortions is access to contraceptives.

I'm unsure of whether you misunderstand what constitutes an evidenced claim or the concept of intellectual honesty.

Humor me and make the logical necessary tie between the holding of both positions (abortion is wrong and contraception is wrong) and intellectual dishonesty.

FYI: If you're going to take the snarky tact, make sure that's actually the ground on which you currently reside.

Perhaps you should consider your spurious casting of aspersions before you deign to lecture me on snark.

 

[Marisa]

I'm unsure of whether you misunderstand what constitutes an evidenced claim or the concept of intellectual honesty.

Humor me and make the logical necessary tie between the holding of both positions (abortion is wrong and contraception is wrong) and intellectual dishonesty.

You may not be sure I understand, but I'm positive you don't. The intellectual dishonesty comes in claiming one holds a position against choice because one frets over the fetus one prefers to consider a baby, despite correct medical and legal terminology, while simultaneously condemning the use of birth control which is the single largest factor impacting the reduction of elective abortions. These people are not interested in "saving" lives, they are interested in morally condemning what they perceive as loose morals. I gave some extremely specific references in my comment, and if your interest was is better understanding what I'm saying, you'd be spending more time googling my references and less time sarcastically asserting that I don't understand what I'm talking about.

For your edification, pro-choice proponents are also among the strongest advocates of readily available and affordable contraceptives as well as competent sex education in the schools rather than an abstinence only education which seeks ONLY to moralize basic biological behaviors. But anti-choice proponents tend to not want their little angels taught how to have sex safely, either. Hence, you get Bristol Palin; and in my area a teen pregnancy rate higher than the national average accompanied with a healthy rate of STD's. If the anti-choice community were truly interested in affecting those numbers, it would seek the best answers to the problem, and those statistics are readily available to anyone who cares enough to know them.

Perhaps you should consider your spurious casting of aspersions before you deign to lecture me on snark.

I did nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should consider broadening your horizons of understanding on this subject before you let your snark flag fly.

 

[Parsimony]

No, you need to be specific in your charges. Who is against artificial contraceptives? Essentially only Catholic teaching and devout Catholics. That is because we are convinced that God’s wisdom far surpasses man’s wisdom. God created man and sexuality and for its intended purposes to create life. But if you want to play the defiant creature and tell God he does not exist and if he does you do not care what he thinks, well, you were given free will to do so.

So contraceptives are viewed as wrong because they act as a roadblock to the conception of a baby that God may want you to have?

 

[Mister Emu]

The intellectual dishonesty comes in claiming one holds a position against choice because one frets over the fetus one prefers to consider a baby, despite correct medical and legal terminology, while simultaneously condemning the use of birth control which is the single largest factor impacting the reduction of elective abortions.

Ahh, so its the concept of intellectual honesty that you are having trouble with.

I also don't support gunning down abortionists or bombing clinics to stop the practice either. I guess that makes me super-duper dishonest.

I gave some extremely specific references in my comment

That I don't care about at all*. You made a claim that referred to me as well as those other people, and I'd rather like it if you supported it with a statement that belies an understanding of the words you are using, or withdrew it.

*You misattributed one quote to Rick Santorum that was said by Paul Ryan, and one was a joke told about 25 years ago. I guess I cared a little.

I did nothing of the sort.

What was that about intellectual honesty again?

 

[Marisa]

Ahh, so its the concept of intellectual honesty that you are having trouble with.

I also don't support gunning down abortionists or bombing clinics to stop the practice either. I guess that makes me super-duper dishonest.


That I don't care about at all*. You made a claim that referred to me as well as those other people, and I'd rather like it if you supported it with a statement that belies an understanding of the words you are using, or withdrew it.

*You misattributed one quote to Rick Santorum that was said by Paul Ryan, and one was a joke told about 25 years ago. I guess I cared a little.


What was that about intellectual honesty again?

If you're going to question my references, then say that you don't care about them, you lose the privilege of then telling me I don't understand the concept I backed up with those references. When you do that, you triple down on intellectual dishonesty. Refute them if you like. In order to do that without coming off somewhat ignorant, though, you're going to have to familiarize yourself with them. Since you did go look them up, privately message me your mailing address and I'll get a brownie point off in the mail to you tomorrow. My point stands, through all your efforts at figuring out what I was saying, unrefuted by you. I welcome your refutation. If you've been following my comments in the unending conversation, I've never once said that your opinion is wrong. It's right for you, and I support your right to have it. Neither you, nor Paul Ryan or Rick Santorum or Clayton Williams or Todd Akin or any of the other myriad number of political candidates speaking out on this issue have the right to foist that opinion onto any other person and force its adoption by the general public.

If you identify with those people I've referenced, know this: I have zero intention of withdrewing (sic) my comment. I supported my comment. Which is more than I can say for you.

You are correct on the Ryan quote. Wow, that totally blows my whole point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is inherently evil for humans.

There is no such thing.
But, because you made the claim, do try and prove this "inherent evil" exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think I got the right one left, but to clarify, Richard Murdock did not say that rape is a gift from god. He did, however, state that a pregnancy resulting from rape is a gift from god.

 

[Marisa]

I think I got the right one left, but to clarify, Richard Murdock did not say that rape is a gift from god. He did, however, state that a pregnancy resulting from rape is a gift from god.

Yeah I have that same quibble with the headline. In my opinion, salacious headlines are a growing problem in our media today. The comment is troubling enough without misrepresenting it for extra "oomph".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah I have that same quibble with the headline. In my opinion, salacious headlines are a growing problem in our media today. The comment is troubling enough without misrepresenting it for extra "oomph".

The troubling part is my mother actually agreed with him. Never mind trying to reason the "loving, merciful, and benevolent" part with her, the way she sees it, if he (god) wants that child to be born that child will be born.
At times I do wish all my friends are correct when they joke I was just dropped off at someone's doorstep.

 

[Mister Emu]

If you're going to question my references, then say that you don't care about them, you lose the privilege of then telling me I don't understand the concept

Hey now, you got it backwards, I said I didn't care about them and then questioned them.

Refute them if you like

Refute what? What someone else said isn't intellectually dishonest? No, thank you, I didn't say any of those things and I'll not be tied to them. You made a, still unsupported, claim against more than those people. That is what I'm asking you to withdraw. The one about holding abortion and contraception to be immoral being dishonest.

In order to do that without coming off somewhat ignorant, though, you're going to have to familiarize yourself with them.

The person who misattributes quotes tells me I need better familiarity to avoid coming off as ignorant? Bless your heart.

I've never once said that your opinion is wrong

Just intellectually dishonest...

If you identify with those people I've referenced, know this: I have zero intention of withdrewing (sic) my comment. I supported my comment. Which is more than I can say for you.

I'd say I likely share much of my ideology with Rick Santorum, both of us being Catholic and all. I had little expectation that you would revisit your erroneous insult, and it would be pretty hard to support a claim when I haven't made one.

There is no such thing.
But, because you made the claim, do try and prove this "inherent evil" exist.

Clearly, we do not share the same base assumptions for morality if you do not agree that actions can be inherently evil for humans to perform. I could show that with my assumptions there exists a compelling argument, but that doesn't really get to what you want.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Clearly, we do not share the same base assumptions for morality if you do not agree that actions can be inherently evil for humans to perform. I could show that with my assumptions there exists a compelling argument, but that doesn't really get to what you want.

Apparently, we don't. I see action, and nothing more. I see humans trying to figure it all out, for better or worse, and nothing more.
Where one sees something that is totally against nature, another sees the same thing as totally in alignment with nature.
We can only say "inherent" when we attach something extra.