Abortion

[Marisa]

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

Yes, and then I said if you message me your mailing address I'll send you a brownie point for having apparently cared enough to go look them up. Previous to having done that, accusing me of intellectual dishonesty was pissing in the wind and trying to convince yourself it's only rain.

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.

See, it's comments like this that make certain you aren't fully comprehending what you're reading. Even when you read it a second time! Go back and read a third time and note how often I put words like "many" or "some" in front of my assertion about anti-choicers. And then I said IF you identify with those people. Never. Said. A. Word. 'Bout. You. Directly. Got it now? Let me break it down even further for you: While many anti-choicers are also anti-contraceptive and appear to be anti-woman, many more anti-choicers are pro-contraceptive. The latter know that when I'm talking about the former I'm not talking about them directly, and sometimes they are even just as embarrassed by those videos I posted as I am.

Here's a point of clarification: you are accusing me of being intellectually dishonest despite the fact that I made an assertion and then backed it up. You are accusing me of being intellectually dishonest for no more reason than that you don't particularly like what I said. I don't care if you like what I said. The simple truth of the matter is that IF you are concerned with reducing the number of elective abortions then you would support the only measure that's PROVED to reduce the number of elective abortions, and that's access to contraceptive and comprehensive sex education.

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

Whatever.

Just intellectually dishonest...

I love Johnny Come Lateley's who don't bother to read the whole conversation and don't care to make it look as if they did because they are too busy telling everyone else what their opinion is. Keep telling me I'm intellectually dishonest. Maybe one day it will be true!

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.

Joe Biden is just as catholic and he supports choice and contraceptive access. My husband's family are catholic and support choice and contraceptive access. Tell me something about catholics I don't know, kay?

And yes, you did make a claim. You keep chanting the mantra that I'm intellectually dishonest simply because you don't like what I've said. Your evidence of this seems to be that I misattributed a quote; here's the thing: I owned up to my mistake, which again is more than can be said for you.

 

[1robin]

Right, and Prohibition was a resounding success by all meanings of the word.

I do not get the point. Are you suggesting that since a society in a particular time lacked the moral courage to withstand the backlash from limiting access to a harmful chemical we should legalize everything that anyone might object to being taken away. Is your position universal agreement or universal anarchy?

Do you deny it is possible that with millions of abortions we have not killed in the womb people that would have done great acts of horror? You don't get this both ways.

This was my point. I did not introduce the idea that we may have aborted someone who would have done good. I was responding to the claim we may have aborted another Hitler. I was objecting to absurd argument with a counter absurdity. My objections to abortion had nothing to do with our aborting someone who would have done some good.

How is abortion any different from refusing to give up an organ to someone?

Well because a human life potentially has a soul and we do not consider organs as persons. However it makes no difference. Abortion has no equality with giving up an organ. Abortion is not about anyone's right to keep a fetus despite someone trying to take it away. That was a terrible comparison.

Do you believe a fetus is more valuable than someone already born? Because I'll go ahead and say yes, I think a fetus is indeed worth less than someone who's been born and who has a life.

That is my point. Neither of us know. In my ignorance I suggest we do not take lives for the sake of convenience, you in your ignorance decide to take millions of lives. Your presuppose the conclusion that is merely your preference then invent standards out of thin air to justify it. BTW an argument about which life is worth more is only relevant in cases where one life must be terminated to save another. I made an exception in that very small percentage of abortions, my argument was not about this tiny minority but about the over 90% of abortions which are the result of simple selfishness.

Making abortion illegal just ends with more bitter people. The mother, who was forced to have the child(and forced to pay for the medical bills), and the child itself who has to grow up in foster care. And you aren't even willing to fund either of them(medical bills or foster-care/orphanages). If you're going both invite & involve yourself in the decision-making regarding someone elses' body the least you can do is help pay for the thing you're forcing them to go through.

I do not know who invented the argument that no law can be passed unless we have 100% agreement and no complaints but it is an argument so silly that it deserves no response. Actions come with responsibilities. It was the mothers choice to have unprotected sex. I deny her the justification of making another life which had no choice pay for her actions. Laws are not based on convenience. We do not legalize drunk driving because the penalties are severe and the action relatively innocent. These are not arguments used in moral theory or legal foundations. This is merely excuses used to rationalize a preference. In most cases I would not bother with someone doing that but when it claims millions of lives I will speak up and demand much better reasons that these to justify their deaths.

 

[Marisa]

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.

The most staunchly, hard line christian conservatives I know where horrified by that comment. And the others, but this one seems to have hit a nerve. In all honesty, I know a lot of christians. I live in the bible belt and have for 48 years (and it's a neverending source of amusement for me when folks tell me I just don't know any "true" christians) and I don't know any who won't admit the god of the bible is a bit of an a-hole. Or perhaps it's more honest to say that I don't keep company with any who don't, because goodness knows there are plenty of people here who I think would die before admitting that.

 

[Selinagirl]

O. K. I wanted to take part in this debate, but thats a little bit to emotional to me...

 

[Marisa]

O. K. I wanted to take part in this debate, but thats a little bit to emotional to me...

It didn't start that way. Unfortunately, this is a subject that people often have trouble controlling their emotions over. But please, do participate! All perspectives are welcome and as for myself, I know very well how to remain civil.

 

[Selinagirl]

Now, i think the sytem here in Germany is good, that a woman has first to go to a counselling to can make an abortion. They talk to her about her life situation, what can be done for her if she gets the Child and so on. For the main topic, i also think, that sexual education and access to prevention is the best way to sink abortion rates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now, i think the sytem here in Germany is good, that a woman has first to go to a counselling to can make an abortion. They talk to her about her life situation, what can be done for her if she gets the Child and so on. For the main topic, i also think, that sexual education and access to prevention is the best way to sink abortion rates.

Unfortunately, sex ed is something that America just does not have. Or, rather, I should say good sex ed programs are very few and far between. Here in America you're more likely to "learn" that condoms really don't work that well, the vagina is a sex organ that can be "used up (often compared to something like a piece of tape, which becomes less useful the more times it's used)," and that if you have sex outside of marriage it will destroy your relationship just because you didn't wait.

 

[Marisa]

Now, i think the sytem here in Germany is good, that a woman has first to go to a counselling to can make an abortion. They talk to her about her life situation, what can be done for her if she gets the Child and so on. For the main topic, i also think, that sexual education and access to prevention is the best way to sink abortion rates.

I would imagine you are receiving or will receive a more comprehensive sex education than many here in the US will receive. For example, my daughter is 16 and has never received sex education through her school that is more comprehensive than "this is what your body does". Because of where we live, if she hears anything in school it's likely to be "good boys and girls don't". I make extra efforts as her parent (and thus a greater influence on her than even her peers) to make sure she understands that in this house, we don't moralize sex, that it's completely normal, and that she should have no fears about coming to me (or her father) with questions because at the end of the day, we want her to be safe and healthy and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. There are some US states which have a more comprehensive sex education in the public school system, by they mostly aren't in the southern "bible belt" states.

Now, lest I be raked over the coals, there is nothing wrong with teaching one's children a moral value set that emphasizes waiting for marriage. My problem comes in telling kids that {insert deity here} will hate them if they don't, or in leading girls to believe that they are more valuable as virgins, and that sex before marriage makes girls a **** (while boys get the moniker "stud"). I personally believe expecting kids not to experiment is a bit clueless, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Selinagirl]

I would imagine you are receiving or will receive a more comprehensive sex education than many here in the US will receive. For example, my daughter is 16 and has never received sex education through her school that is more comprehensive than "this is what your body does". Because of where we live, if she hears anything in school it's likely to be "good boys and girls don't". I make extra efforts as her parent (and thus a greater influence on her than even her peers) to make sure she understands that in this house, we don't moralize sex, that it's completely normal, and that she should have no fears about coming to me (or her father) with questions because at the end of the day, we want her to be safe and healthy and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. There are some US states which have a more comprehensive sex education in the public school system, by they mostly aren't in the southern "bible belt" states.

Now, lest I be raked over the coals, there is nothing wrong with teaching one's children a moral value set that emphasizes waiting for marriage. My problem comes in telling kids that {insert deity here} will hate them if they don't, or in leading girls to believe that they are more valuable as virgins, and that sex before marriage makes girls a **** (while boys get the moniker "stud"). I

In Germany we put the South American Sexual moral near the one in Saudi - Arabia. Besides, i think a girl should at least know a men in bed before marriage and will spent her life with a men who can't give her satisfaction. We also have a "True Love Waits" Movement here, but it's quite small.

 

[Marisa]

In Germany we put the South American Sexual moral near the one in Saudi - Arabia. Besides, i think a girl should at least know a men in bed before marriage and will spent her life with a men who can't give her satisfaction. We also have a "True Love Waits" Movement here, but it's quite small.

Well I gotta say, if you're just saying "have sex first" then I don't necessarily agree. If you're marrying this person, one assumes that you are comfortable sharing with this person what pleases you. Even couples who have been together for decades still have to communicate about how to please each other in all areas, including sexually. That's what makes a happy marriage, communication. It's incredibly unlikely that you will meet a person who meets every single one of your requirements in a partner, and while you shouldn't expect a person to completely overhaul their personality to suit you, there is a fair amount of accepting things that don't exactly rock your wagon.

I can argue for and against living together before marriage from personal experience, but here's the TL;DR version: it doesn't make a relationship any more likely to succeed. I lived with a guy for 5 years and we broke up. I never lived with husband before we married and we'll celebrate 18 years this fall. Again, it all comes back to communication. My previous boyfriend and I didn't engage in it, so we grew apart. My husband and I do it all the time, and thus we continue to grow together.

 

[Selinagirl]

Well I gotta say, if you're just saying "have sex first" then I don't necessarily agree. If you're marrying this person, one assumes that you are comfortable sharing with this person what pleases you. Even couples who have been together for decades still having to communicate about how to please each other in all areas, including sexually. That's what makes a happy marriage, communication. It's incredibly unlikely that you will meet a person who meets every single one of your requirements in a partner, and while you shouldn't expect a person to completely overhaul their personality to suit you, there is a fair amount of accepting things that don't exactly rock your wagon.

I can argue for and against living together before marriage from personal experience, but here's the TL;DR version: it doesn't make a relationship any more likely to succeed. I lived with a guy for 5 years and we broke up. I never lived with husband before we married and we'll celebrate 18 years this fall. Again, it all comes back to communication. My previous boyfriend and I didn't engage in it, so we grew apart. My husband and I do it all the time, and thus we continue to grow together.

Now, it's still just theory for me, i'm just 13 and don't even have a boyfriend. But congrats for that long marriage. If i will marry some day, i think i'll do it for the taxes.

 

[Marisa]

Now, it's still just theory for me, i'm just 13 and don't even have a boyfriend. But congrats for that long marriage. If i will marry some day, i think i'll do it for the taxes.

You've got plenty of time to decide these things. When I was your age, I was firmly convinced I'd never marry at all. Men (boys) were distractions, and I had PLANS dammit!

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, and then I said if you message me your mailing address I'll send you a brownie point for having apparently cared enough to go look them up.

I ignored that part because I'm pretty sure that's not brownie in what you're giving me.

Go back and read a third time and note how often I put words like "many" or "some" in front of my assertion about anti-choicers=

"What makes the anti-choice crowd seem so intellectually dishonest is that many who hold such views are also against contraceptives". You even tried to defend that abomination against reason.

Never. Said. A. Word. 'Bout. You. Directly. Got it now?

You. Don't. Need. To. Mention. Someone. Directly. To. Say. Something. About. Them. When you say that the Pro-life "crowd" is seen as intellectually dishonest because of people holding beliefs I hold, then you are saying it about me. It isn't a hard concept to grasp that when you say something about a class of people you are saying it about each individual in that class as well.

The latter know that when I'm talking about the former I'm not talking about them directly, and sometimes they are even just as embarrassed by those videos I posted as I am.

Sometimes the former, those who are against both abortion and contraception will point out that you aren't being reasonable when you call us intellectually dishonest. And sometimes we have snark when we do it, because we're human too and we don't always take kindly to aspersions.

And why would I be embarrassed by what someone else said? I laugh at people saying immensely stupid things.

Here's a point of clarification: you are accusing me of being intellectually dishonest despite the fact that I made an assertion and then backed it up.

Here's some clarification, no I didn't, not because of your claim. Here's some more, if you think that contraceptive use lowers the number of abortions somehow means being pro-life and anti-contraceptive is intellectually dishonest, you don't know what intellectual honesty means. If I said that someone called rape a gift from God and that person said all children even from rape were gifts from God. That is intellectual dishonesty.

You are accusing me of being intellectually dishonest for no more reason than that you don't particularly like what I said.

No, I questioned you because you had the gall to say you weren't casting aspersions. And, all things being fair, if it weren't for the topic I probably wouldn't have gone that far (would have been more of a c'mon now)... but really, if you're going to go around calling whole classes of people dishonest, you really should make sure you don't appear to cross that line yourself.

The simple truth of the matter is that IF you are concerned with reducing the number of elective abortions then you would support the only measure that's PROVED to reduce the number of elective abortions, and that's access to contraceptive and comprehensive sex education.

You are missing some key words after "abortion", words like "above all else", "at all costs", or "without regard to the morality of the method". I'm also pretty sure illegality would lower the number of abortions, this I support. I'm also pretty sure guns and bombs in enough number would lower abortions, this I do not support. Wow! I don't support immoral means to ends, and what do you know, it's like I'm consistent on that front or something.

Keep telling me I'm intellectually dishonest.

I wasn't calling you intellectually dishonest there, I was remarking on your statement that my views weren't wrong with your previous statement that my views were dishonest.

Joe Biden is just as catholic and he supports choice and contraceptive access.

Ehhhh, I'm sure(or I hope) he's a nice guy and a faithful Catholic and all, but here, for abortion, he is directly and willfully going against the Church.

And yes, you did make a claim. You keep chanting the mantra that I'm intellectually dishonest simply because you don't like what I've said. Your evidence of this seems to be that I misattributed a quote; here's the thing: I owned up to my mistake, which again is more than can be said for you.

Please, I didn't "keep" chanting anything, except that you're wrong, because you are. You did own up to your mistake, bravo. Perhaps you could point out a mistake I've made?

 

[Selinagirl]

I'm also catholic but also pro choice. I think, some people are taking religion to serious. And if you make abortion illegal, you force the woman to go to backyard doctors that do it without license or hygenic standards and probably die. Do you want this, Emu? Is your opinion that abortion is such a great sin that rhe proper penality for it is the death?

 

[Marisa]

I'm also catholic but also pro choice. I think, some people are taking religion to serious. And if you make abortion illegal, you force the woman to go to backyard doctors that do it without license or hygenic standards and probably die. Do you want this, Emu? Is your opinion that abortion is such a great sin that rhe proper penality for it is the death?

Excellent question. Out of the mouths of babes.

 

[1robin]

Is this a serious question/point, or are you being facetious? The obvious answer is that society in general has used extremely poor methods and ideas to combat drugs throughout the years that have repeatedly backfired on them. That is why we are seeing most of the Western World rethink their stance on drugs in general.

The rest of the world in general is still outlawing countless substances just as they always have. I would say that society in general has become far less tolerant of drugs over time. The relevant point is not how efficient or well a method has worked at stopping some behavior. It is that in general the world is intolerant of extremely harmful behavior if it does not have sufficient justification. We in general try to stop immoral and destructive behavior, and pointing out missteps along the way the way in how best to limit these behaviors does nothing to justify them. Theft is immoral and illegal no matter how imperfect a law or enforcement is in combating it.

However this is not a relevant issue. This some side bar that has gone off the rails at some point. Your original point was something about not making anything illegal that was inconvenient for anyone or which has any negative repercussions. That is an absurd argument and no society has ever operated legally based on that kind of reasoning excepting some very rare exceptions. Discussing the society history of drug legality is not going to help your argument no matter how detailed and in-depth we investigate it.

 

[Mister Emu]

I think, some people are taking religion to serious.

I don't think that is possible, my faith, my love for God and His for me pervades everything, or I wish it did. It informs my life, or I wish it did.

I do believe that some people don't quite get what taking Christianity seriously means and think they have to live dour lives.

And if you make abortion illegal, you force the woman to go to backyard doctors that do it without license or hygenic standards and probably die. Do you want this, Emu? Is your opinion that abortion is such a great sin that rhe proper penality for it is the death?

The penalty here for premeditated murder in cold blood is 25 years to life imprisonment, and I don't have an issue with that. Do I want them to die? No, it is a tragedy the same as when any other murderer dies in the act of murder. Do I care overmuch for the hygienic and safety standards for murderers? Again, no.

 

[Selinagirl]

I don't think that is possible, my faith, my love for God and His for me pervades everything, or I wish it did. It informs my life, or I wish it did.

I do believe that some people don't quite get what taking Christianity seriously means and think they have to live dour lives.


The penalty here for premeditated murder in cold blood is 25 years to life imprisonment, and I don't have an issue with that. Do I want them to die? No, it is a tragedy the same as when any other murderer dies in the act of murder. Do I care overmuch for the hygienic and safety standards for murderers? Again, no.

If you see it as murder when unborn childs are killed, then you MUST care for the safety of this women because they someday WILL have children and keep them. After that, there are fates harder than death. I'd rather be aborted than live in a orphan house or with a mother that doesn't love me and only brought me to existence because the law said so.

 

[Marisa]

If you see it as murder when unborn childs are killed, then you MUST care for the safety of this women because they someday WILL have children and keep them. After that, there are fates harder than death. I'd rather be aborted than live in a orphan house or with a mother that doesn't love me and only brought me to existence because the law said so.

The problem here is that science has nothing to say on when "life" begins, i.e. at what stage of development a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is correctly considered to be "alive". (In this conversation there's been a fairly extensive and rather laborious conversation about the definitions of those words, I'm not going back there.) And I'd wager that even if science was able to define at what point "life" begins, it wouldn't matter to folks like Emu, nor am I necessarily sure that it should. They have their beliefs, and I support their right to allow those beliefs to inform their opinions on matters of morality. I just don't support their right to force their opinion into law and thus upon all of us, regardless of how callous I may feel their opinions are. I would be as staunch an advocate against forced abortion as I am against forced pregnancy, Emu would find a him/herself siding with me on that one. I don't reject Emu's opinion, I reject Emu's attempts to force that opinion on the general public, most especially in light of anything science has to say on the subject of when "life" becomes *life*.

 

[Selinagirl]

The problem here is that science has nothing to say on when "life" begins, i.e. at what stage of development a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is correctly considered to be "alive". (In this conversation there's been a fairly extensive and rather laborious conversation about the definitions of those words, I'm not going back there.) And I'd wager that even if science was able to define at what point "life" begins, it wouldn't matter to folks like Emu, nor am I necessarily sure that it should. They have their beliefs, and I support their right to allow those beliefs to inform their opinions on matters of morality. I just don't support their right to force their opinion into law and thus upon all of us, regardless of how callous I may feel their opinions are. I would be as staunch an advocate against forced abortion as I am against forced pregnancy, Emu would find a him/herself siding with me on that one. I don't reject Emu's opinion, I reject Emu's attempts to force that opinion on the general public, most especially in light of anything science has to say on the subject of when "life" becomes *life*.

I don't think it is necessary to define when life begins, for me it starts when a cell could become a child, so it clearly is killing to abort. But it's not murder, especially you americans should understand that, you have the right to kill somebody only for comeing into your house and don't call that "murder". I see abortion more as self - defense in that case, and like i just said (i meant iit SERIOUS), sometimes it could even be better for the child.

But the problem with the pro-life group is, that they will never be happy to mean it just for themselves. For this people it's murder and they think they have not even the right but the DUTY to do everything to prevent it, like placing bombs in abortion clinics.