Abortion

[StrawDog]

does it feel a bit odd to you... to worship a God who intentionaly created us so flawed that we woud murder our children.???

Thats just for starters Clueless. We are/were created so flawed, we are able to murder our children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, distant relatives and complete strangers. Sometimes on an industrial scale as we see in the ME. Which is supposed to be under the direct supervision of two loving deities, YHWH and Allah, who may or may not be one and the same.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

And [the pro-choice position gives choice] by relegating the article of contention to a non-person status. If one does happen to grant it, it provides a radically different view of who the closest person is bearing the consequences of the decision

A better way to think about the issue is to put personhood on a sliding scale. Therefore, a foetus at 8 months gestation is closer to being a newborn than a 3-month, which is closer than a 6-week etc. And therefore more consideration ought to be given to the foetus as a person later in pregnancy. And that's how it works with people who actually deal with this stuff rather than philosophising at arms length.

Did the racists back in the day also advocate killing all white people with the same or lower average IQ as the average black person (as measured "scientifically" according to the standards of the time)? I don't think so. What does that suggest to you?

That a certain level of social dominance is required to establish a value.
What does it suggest to you?

It suggests that the racists' reasons for wanting to eliminate all black people or to deny them rights had nothing to do with IQ, really. If it was really about IQ, then they would have been consistent, would they not?

Despite calling it lump of goop, or undeveloped nebula, we don't see goop or nebula giving rise to life, what to speak of human life.

Why this extreme reverence for potential personhood? You don't revere Prince Charles as King right now just because he has the potential to be King some time in the future.

If its alive and within the homo sapien species...

What's so special about the human species? Do you advocate a right-to-life of all species, or just Homo sapiens?

 

[James R]

mordea:

I note you did not respond to posts #915 and #917. I assume you have no adequate response and are dodging the issue.

it highlights how arbitrary the definition of 'personhood' actually is. What one considers a person varies from individual to individual. Some consider anything human to be a person. Some consider non-humans to people. Some require that the organism be viable outside the womb before considering it a person. Some require a certain degree of mental function before granting the life form personhood.

Personhood is so poorly defined, that it is apparent to me that it should *not* be used as means of determining whether someone is entitled to the right to life.

So you would presumably advocate a right to life for animal foetuses in addition to human foetuses, in order to be consistent. Correct?

She has no right to terminate the existence of another life form, unless her life is immediate jeopardy (ie. in self-defense).

You're a vegetarian, of course. You'd have to be, to take this stance. Right?

----

Interesting little exchange you had there with iceaura...

There are no graves in the cemeteries for early miscarriages, no funerals for ectopic pregnancies, no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances that treat an early embryo as a child in any way

So? How is 'having a funeral' a measure of being human? Are you saying that I cannot be considered human until I am six feet under? Wow, the arguments put forward by pro-choicers become more retarded as the years go by

Here. you disingenuously try to deflect the point that was made by concentrating on funerals, when the point actually referred to "no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances".

The fact is, your supposed reverence for the life of unborn foetuses ONLY applies to human foetuses in specific case where a woman wants to abort that foetus. i.e. where a woman wants to make a choice for herself, in defiance of your masculine control over her body which you believe is your right.

My observation that a fetus is human is based on genetics and biological science. Last time I checked, the taxonomical classification of species didn't have 'funerals' as a prequisite for regarding an organism as Homo sapiens.

What is special about Homo sapiens? Please explain your stance with regard to unborn animal foetuses, being the vegetarian you obviously must be.

I would not give a 6 year old the same privileges an adult has. However, I would extend the right to life to both of them. I extend the right to life to *all* humans.

Why stop at humans?

You're inconsistent. You complain about drawing arbitrary lines, but here you are drawing one yourself.

 

[StrawDog]

given that the bad end of moral responsibility is relegated to the material world (which merely acts as a sort of theater for the expression of desire that is by and large inappropriate) ... and also given that such sojourns culminate in coming to the higher end ... its not clear what the loss is
:shrug:...

An obvious and rather glaring flaw in your position regarding said theatre, is the clear lack if regular, visible and unambiguous divine intervention on the matter of moral responsibility. It seems G_d has fully handed over the day to day (if not millennia to millennia) decision making regarding such moral matters as abortion, to his faithful human servants, in the guise of Popes, Priests, Imams, Rabbis, etc. whose views, judgments and proclamations are undoubtedly tainted by the limitations (and flaws) of their very mortality. No? :m:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...give you'r definiton of "free-will".!!! ”

in short, the decisions you make now are a consequence of the decisions you have made in the past

God intentionaly created us flawed an designed circumstances which guranteed that we woud make bad decisons... so thats you'r idea of "free-will"... oK.!!!

Its wort it to you to have "free-will" even tho it makes it inevitable that horrors such as rape will occur to children

given that the bad end of moral responsibility is relegated to the material world (which merely acts as a sort of theater for the expression of desire that is by and large inappropriate) ... and also given that such sojourns culminate in coming to the higher end ... its not clear what the loss is

I take that as a "yes"... that its wort it to you to have you'r idea of free-will even if it includes the necessity that children will be raped.!!!

Personaly... i woud rather God not have created us if those conditons was the bes he coud do.!!!

then you would rather live in a universe without moral responsibility

I woud rather the universe not have been created if it made it inevitable that children woud be tortured raped an murdered... how bout you.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Thats just for starters Clueless. We are/were created so flawed, we are able to murder our children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, distant relatives and complete strangers. Sometimes on an industrial scale as we see in the ME. Which is supposed to be under the direct supervision of two loving deities, YHWH and Allah, who may or may not be one and the same.

I got a feelin we dont know squat about those "deities" (if they even esist)... but if the Koran an Holey Bible are corect then our lovin deitits are monsters :runaway:

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

not at all
I'm saying that it doesn't extend to the lives others


not me specifically, but generally for issues like murder and killing, they are put before persons other than those who who are accomplices (since they obviously have vested interests)


Once again, it gets back to what they are doing with their bodies that infringes on the rights of the bodies of others


and its not as if that is a solution to the problem

I aim a bit higher
I go for the values that cause the problem (since placing band aid solutions isn't even half as effective)


On the contrary, it would be more alarming for one to take their chances in yours

Who's other body is it infringing upon? Those who think of the fetus as a baby to be born will obviously never choose to have an abortion but there are many who do not hold your idea about an 8 week fetus. As for the 'soap box' remark I as well as many other 'pro choicers' do not rail against those who choose not to have an abortion, the position is always one of personal choice. Obviously the law in civilized societies do not consider it murder or killing. If you feel differently you are always free not to have an abortion...oops I forgot its not something you ever need to consider

You say you aim a bit higher and go for values that cause the problem, but you suppose that there is an entire world of people that welcome your values and obviously this isn't true, so your solutions are not solutions at all but rather your personal solution. Your personal choices cannot be extended towards others which is why choice or variety of solutions is so important.

LG: On the contrary, it would be more alarming for one to take their chances in yours

Hardly alarming. Men of honor and muscle find it quit inviting but its only open towards the best men mind you. No impotent anemic self-proclaimed monks allowed, then it tends to grow teeth and leave a eunuch behind.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:



A better way to think about the issue is to put personhood on a sliding scale. Therefore, a foetus at 8 months gestation is closer to being a newborn than a 3-month, which is closer than a 6-week etc. And therefore more consideration ought to be given to the foetus as a person later in pregnancy.

similar models were there to put blacks in there place during the day too

It suggests that the racists' reasons for wanting to eliminate all black people or to deny them rights had nothing to do with IQ, really. If it was really about IQ, then they would have been consistent, would they not?

it suggests that whatever sliding scales they had in place was simply a prop for their values

Why this extreme reverence for potential personhood?

Its not a potential
its already there ... however if you want to call upon an extreme view, try placing it in the same category as bunch of goop or whatever

You don't revere Prince Charles as King right now just because he has the potential to be King some time in the future.

nevertheless he is treated along the same lines ... even moreso if it was perfectly clear that he was 9 months away from being designated as such ...

What's so special about the human species? Do you advocate a right-to-life of all species, or just Homo sapiens?

its more that homo sapiens appear within the wombs of homo sapiens, so categorizing the offspring as something like a parasite is kind of strange

 

[lightgigantic]

An obvious and rather glaring flaw in your position regarding said theatre, is the clear lack if regular, visible and unambiguous divine intervention on the matter of moral responsibility. It seems G_d has fully handed over the day to day (if not millennia to millennia) decision making regarding such moral matters as abortion, to his faithful human servants, in the guise of Popes, Priests, Imams, Rabbis, etc. whose views, judgments and proclamations are undoubtedly tainted by the limitations (and flaws) of their very mortality. No? :m:

the very nature of having an appearance in a particular womb (in a particular species) in a particular environment is regular, visible, unambiguous and direct
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

God intentionaly created us flawed an designed circumstances which guranteed that we woud make bad decisons... so thats you'r idea of "free-will"... oK.!!!

two sore points that you seem never to be capable of addressing

1. why is free will a flaw?
   
2. why is it guaranteed that we make (specific) bad decisions?

thanks in advance ....

Its wort it to you to have "free-will" even tho it makes it inevitable that horrors such as rape will occur to children

geez
I'm beginning to wonder about you ...

What is it about your free will that makes you feel its inevitable for you to rape children?

I take that as a "yes"... that its wort it to you to have you'r idea of free-will even if it includes the necessity that children will be raped.!!!

once again, why is it necessary for a person to rape children if they have free will?

Personaly... i woud rather God not have created us if those conditons was the bes he coud do.!!!

its not that god didn't do the best, its just that there are some aspects of his creation (like here for instance) that are relegated for those stabilized around a poor effort .... kind of like if one was out for experiencing the best that a country has on offer, they probably wouldn't wouldn't include 20 years in a maximum security prison on the itinerary ....

I woud rather the universe not have been created if it made it inevitable that children woud be tortured raped an murdered... how bout you.???

Well I don't find such things necessary .... How about you?

 

[iceaura]

it highlights how arbitrary the definition of 'personhood' actually is. What one considers a person varies from individual to individual. Some consider anything human to be a person. Some consider non-humans to people. Some require that the organism be viable outside the womb before considering it a person. Some require a certain degree of mental function before granting the life form personhood.

But there are some aspects of "personhood" everyone seems to hold in common.

Judging by all the evidence we have about every civilization known to me, no one has ever considered a three month embryo to be a person, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman.

It's difficult to establish a negative like that, but note that even the most diligent purveyors of assertions otherwise, searching their sources, have failed to exhibit even obscure and culturally distant counterexamples on this forum in several thread discussions (witness light g's Hindu "samskaras", the closest attempts, in which rituals intended to establish the sex of the born child are performed after conception, clearly showing that the ritual performer does not consider the embryo to have an established gender. )

Certainly among Westerners miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy and
the like are treated as wholly different in kind from the death (or killing) of a child, and this has been for centuries just as true of such firmly and loudly "prolife" institutions as the Catholic Church as anyone else.

And it is equally obvious among the prolifers here.

 

[lightgigantic]

Who's other body is it infringing upon?

don't be daft

the one in the womb of course

Those who think of the fetus as a baby to be born will obviously never choose to have an abortion but there are many who do not hold your idea about an 8 week fetus.

if you want to relegate the issue to some relative outlook, how would you feel about other issues?

For instance there are some men (and even some women too) who feel that women are by nature flawed and not deserving the full gamut of rights usually afforded to men.

Do you think we should just draw a line down the middle, and let those who believe in it do their thing, or do you think there is a greater need to establish uniform values on the subject?

As for the 'soap box' remark I as well as many other 'pro choicers' do not rail against those who choose not to have an abortion, the position is always one of personal choice.

sure
instead you save your soap boxing for railing on posts like these

Obviously the law in civilized societies do not consider it murder or killing. If you feel differently you are always free not to have an abortion...oops I forgot its not something you ever need to consider

golly huh

just like legal norms of a 200 years ago were the bees knees of ethics, eh?

You say you aim a bit higher and go for values that cause the problem, but you suppose that there is an entire world of people that welcome your values and obviously this isn't true,

once again, vox populi and ethics as goal posts on the same field are for the thick headed

so your solutions are not solutions at all but rather your personal solution. Your personal choices cannot be extended towards others which is why choice or variety of solutions is so important.

imagine if every group/personality at the fore of revolutionizing society shared your ideas of empowerment ....

LG: On the contrary, it would be more alarming for one to take their chances in yours

Hardly alarming. Men of honor and muscle find it quit inviting but its only open towards the best men mind you. No impotent anemic self-proclaimed monks allowed, then it tends to grow teeth and leave a eunuch behind.

I've got to laugh (and not at your regal self-proclamation of the exclusiveness of your genitals)

(actually I was talking about the prospects of appearing within your womb)

 

[StrawDog]

the very nature of having an appearance in a particular womb (in a particular species) in a particular environment is regular, visible, unambiguous and direct
:shrug:

No, all life propagates with or without faith. Much of the secrets are unravelled. One can grow a baby in a petrie dish. :m:

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well you are the one who is daft enough to consider a 6 week fetus a 'person'. Twit!

I hate to blow your fantasy but there are men who feel women are inherently flawed and shouldn't be afforded the same rights as men, but they are free to think that way and you won't see too many people bothering to change their misogynistic view. This is different than establishing such a value via the State. Same with abortion, there are those daft ones who believe that no one should have the right to an abortion, they are free to live by these values but they are not allowed to inflict those values on others by denying them that right. Same way if a man wants his wife to stay home and take his word as golden and tell her she's too stupid to vote, as long as the wife is willingly abiding by his wishes (that means without force) then they are free to live in whatever bubble they create for themselves.

How am I railing? I rail against your dullness and that superficial plastic lotus flower you believe you sit on but that's just business as usual. My position is that women have the right to choose. I don't say that all women should have an abortion, I say all women should have it as an available choice.

Well sorry but I think we are far more advanced in many respects than 200 years ago.

LG: once again, vox populi and ethics as goal posts on the same field are for the thick headed

No sorry you haven't addressed the point. I said that YOUR values are yours alone, they cannot be extended towards others, the majority of whom disagree. You are free to live the way you wish to live without masturbation, without sex, knock yourself out but you cannot proclaim this as a solution for the rest of the world. You want to live as a monk, best of british luck to you and I suggest you get thee to a monastery, sooner the better, but this is not a solution for others living in a secular liberal society.

LG: imagine if every group/personality at the fore of revolutionizing society shared your ideas of empowerment ....

They did. Most enlightened revolutionaries advocate more freedom not less

Yes LG it is regal! Inside and out. Only you would be daft enough to think that every pregnancy by a pro choicer would be automatically unwanted.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, all life propagates with or without faith. Much of the secrets are unravelled. One can grow a baby in a petrie dish. :m:

and?

(I mean one could just as easily parent offspring in the usual fashion)

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

(I mean one could just as easily parent offspring in the usual fashion)

And people generally do. So what?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well you are the one who is daft enough to consider a 6 week fetus a 'person'. Twit!

you are the one who insist on vague terms like "person" so you can keep a clean nose
:shrug:

I hate to blow your fantasy but there are men who feel women are inherently flawed and shouldn't be afforded the same rights as men, but they are free to think that way and you won't see too many people bothering to change their misogynistic view.

really?
How do you suppose women were ever granted the right to vote or own land or even be awarded the same rate of pay?

This is different than establishing such a value via the State.

and how do you think it came to be established by the state?
They just draw random ideas out of a hat or something?

Same with abortion, there are those daft ones who believe that no one should have the right to an abortion, they are free to live by these values but they are not allowed to inflict those values on others by denying them that right. Same way if a man wants his wife to stay home and take his word as golden and tell her she's too stupid to vote, as long as the wife is willingly abiding by his wishes (that means without force) then they are free to live in whatever bubble they create for themselves.

national legislation disagrees with you (for instance such an incident in the workplace could warrant a legal case)

How am I railing? I rail against your dullness and that superficial plastic lotus flower you believe you sit on but that's just business as usual. My position is that women have the right to choose. I don't say that all women should have an abortion, I say all women should have it as an available choice.

and I say you adopt the same terms of endearment afforded by racists bigots of yesteryear just so you can remain similarly comfortable position ... so here we are ...

Well sorry but I think we are far more advanced in many respects than 200 years ago.

fancy that, eh?

LG: once again, vox populi and ethics as goal posts on the same field are for the thick headed

No sorry you haven't addressed the point. I said that YOUR values are yours alone, they cannot be extended towards others, the majority of whom disagree. You are free to live the way you wish to live without masturbation, without sex, knock yourself out but you cannot proclaim this as a solution for the rest of the world.

that is not my solution
actually your thinking is symptomatic of industrial society.

All this junk has only been on the scene en masse for the past 50 or so years and now you can't even conceive of human society existing without it

You want to live as a monk, best of british luck to you and I suggest you get thee to a monastery, sooner the better, but this is not a solution for others living in a secular liberal society.

whats the big hold up about putting responsible parenthood on the same level as sex life?

LG: imagine if every group/personality at the fore of revolutionizing society shared your ideas of empowerment ....

They did. Most enlightened revolutionaries advocate more freedom not less

Whatever ideas they held, if they thought ....

Your personal choices cannot be extended towards others

... they would have thrown in the towel on day 1

Yes LG it is regal!

hardly warrants a paparazzi ... and like all notions of emboldened selfhood that arise from the physical body, give it 30 or 40 years and you will probably be embarrassed by it

Inside and out but only you would be daft enough to think that every pregnancy by a pro choicer would be automatically unwanted.

the statistics tend to indicate that there are safer options available ...

 

[lightgigantic]

And people generally do. So what?

so its not clear how adopting a particular means to bring life into the world places a checkmate on ideas of its appearance (in a particular species, womb/petrie dish or environment) being governed by superior forces

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

you are the one who insist on vague terms like "person" so you can keep a clean nose
:shrug:

really?
How do you suppose women were ever granted the right to vote or own land or even be awarded the same rate of pay?


and how do you think it came to be established by the state?
They just draw random ideas out of a hat or something?

national legislation disagrees with you (for instance such an incident in the workplace could warrant a legal case)

and I say you adopt the same terms of endearment afforded by racists bigots of yesteryear just so you can remain similarly comfortable position ... so here we are ...

that is not my solution
actually your thinking is symptomatic of industrial society.

All this junk has only been on the scene en masse for the past 50 or so years and now you can't even conceive of human society existing without it

whats the big hold up about putting responsible parenthood on the same level as sex life?

Whatever ideas they held, if they thought ....

Your personal choices cannot be extended towards others

... they would have thrown in the towel on day 1


hardly warrants a paparazzi ... and like all notions of emboldened selfhood that arise from the physical body, give it 30 or 40 years and you will probably be embarrassed by it


the statistics tend to indicate that there are safer options available ...

LOL! Why do I need to keep a clean nose? I am not ashamed of my stance which is that of choice.

How were they granted the vote? Ever hear of the suffrage movement? They fought for it! Ever hear of the women's right's movement? They fought for that too along with the right to a safe abortion which Margaret Sanger began a long time ago.

How was it established by the State? Same way afro-americans gained headway in the civil rights movement just look at my last paragraph.

LG: national legislation disagrees with you (for instance such an incident in the workplace could warrant a legal case)

Nope. I said that anyone is allowed to hold whatever opinion they wish. A man also is allowed to keep his wife as a kitchen slave if he so wishes. In the workplace one has to abide by secular liberal laws but that doesn't mean a man is forced to think women equal.

LG: and I say you adopt the same terms of endearment afforded by racists bigots of yesteryear just so you can remain similarly comfortable position ... so here we are ...

Like what? What terms of endearment do I use that is used by bigots and racists? My position is one of choice. Meaning that women have the choice to have an abortion or choose to have their baby or give it up for adoption. Now how is that akin to racist ideology?

LG: All this junk has only been on the scene en masse for the past 50 or so years and now you can't even conceive of human society existing without it


Sorry mate women have been aborting babies ever since they discovered the herbs that made it possible. Women have been going to back street abortionists long before it was ever made legal. Its legal now because women will do it anyway so they might as well do so safely.

Responsible parenthood is for another thread as it doesn't have anything to do with abortion rights. One can say that not having a child when one doesn't have the resources for it is being responsible.

LG: Whatever ideas they held, if they thought ....
Your personal choices cannot be extended towards others
... they would have thrown in the towel on day 1

Nah. The enlightened revolutionaries were always geared towards extending liberty. It was the fascists that wanted to force others to accept their personal choices or else.

LG: the statistics tend to indicate that there are safer options available ...

The statistics show that most women do not have abortions. The stats show that most women who do have abortions go on to have a baby later when they are better prepared. The statistics also show that there is no fool proof contraceptive save abstinence and the stats also show that the majority of men and women in society are not interested in that option.

Save you and signal.

As for the rest, I'm old enough to know there is nothing in my life I need to be ashamed of. You seem to be the one who lives in shame of his every natural instinct.

 

[lightgigantic]

(witness light g's Hindu "samskaras", the closest attempts, in which rituals intended to establish the sex of the born child are performed after conception, clearly showing that the ritual performer does not consider the embryo to have an established gender. )

once again, to reiterate a sore point, I don't think you understand other cultures (what to speak of people from other cultures)

I mean can you cite anything (aside from your own summation of what the facts indicate) that indicates up until the Pumsavana ceremony, the life in the womb is not considered to be intact or whatever?

Much less why they didn't work out of that understanding by aging a child at 1 from the day of conception, or giving the title of eldest to the first born in the case of twins, or the host of information (the information that all these rituals and social conventions are based on) that declares in no uncertain terms that life begins at the point of conception


The Personality of Godhead said: Under the supervision of the Supreme Lord and according to the result of his work, the living entity, the soul, is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semen to assume a particular type of body.

:shrug: