Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!

 This video speaks for itself.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:2, what does

Balkoth wrote:

2, what does equal say mean anyway?  Woman says she wants an abortion, man says no.  Equal say.  What happens?  Woman says she doesn't want an abortion, man says yes.  Equal say.  What happens?  If they both have equal say, does that mean their opinions cancel each other out if they disagree and she has the child?  I realize you're playing Devil's Advocate, but how would you define equal say, let alone practically apply it?

Coin flip?


 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
In all seriousness, we need

In all seriousness, we need a reduction of population in general. From the data given the number of children in foster care seemed to remain steady. We need to give incentives to adopting parents and reduce birth rates. That would tip the scale in favor of the foster care kids. I'm not going to say anything about abortion because nobody ever changes their mind about it. I will say that abstinence is no kind of solution. People are not going to stop having sex. To even ask why people would have sex when they don't want a child shows a complete lack of understanding of people.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Couple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Couple points, first anniet, this isn't just a religious issue

I didn't say it was.  I said "The opposition to abortion seems to boil down to a feeling that life itself needs to be respected."  and "Why is it ok for person A to tell person B what they can and cannot do with their own body?  I see this as a leftover from religion."  I am advocating that we separate the current discussion from leftover religious thinking as that thinking solely serves to cloud any real issues that can be discussed.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
anniet wrote:

Now, if people truly do become willing to fully respect life and actually act upon making sure those who are born have a chance (not a guarantee just a good chance) at being fully functioning people who can fully experience what being alive means

Probability of realizing what being alive means when you're dead =0%

Really?  How astounding.  (/sarcasm)  So let me get this straight, you want to see children born into suffering?  That is the end result of your position.  No nice fantasy about social services turning all women into incredible mothers is going to erase this reality.  Furthermore, you fully ignore a main point of what I wrote to someone holding your position.  I ask again:

anniet wrote:
For those of you advocating a level of reverence for the life capabilities represented by a fetus, what have you done to demonstrate this level of reverence for children born into bad circumstances?  If you are not willing to step up and actually take action to demonstrate your valuing of life once such a child is born, why are you asking that even more children be born into such circumstances?  What are you doing to ensure that the consequences of the position you are advocating for others is not the negative that is likely in reality, but closer to the positive that you would like the world to move towards?

Captain, I realize you are quite intelligent.  However, you have a tendancy to assume the world is how you want it to be not how it really is.  I realize I am setting an aggressive tone here with you.  I want to make sure you understand that this is not being done to hurt your feelings, but to get you to try and see that not everyone else's life is set-up like yours.  Take a moment to step outside of your comfortable existence please.  If you can't do that, then you should not be commenting on how others should face the choices they have to make in life as you are not capable of evaluating the consequences if you cannot even see what those consequences may be.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Dracos
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Abortion

On this grossly overpopulated planet, with its depleated resources, that is drownding in pollution, I thint that abortion should be mandatory in most cases.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Um, gee, I hadn't thought

"Um, gee, I hadn't thought about that."

*sigh*

That says it all.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
I wonder what percentage of

I wonder what percentage of pro-lifers are also in support of abstinence-only sex education.

The pro-life movement, much like organized religion, is completely out of touch with reality. I just read yesterday that a large percentage of Americans (I think it was 90%+) have had sexual relations by the time they turn 25. Also, if I remember correctly, the average age of an American on his or her wedding day is presently 26+.

Do the math, and you'll quickly see that there is a lot of pre-marital sex going on whether you like it or not. So the pro-life movement would be much better served by directing its resources toward reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place (with thorough and proper sex education programs), rather than trying to deal with the fallout.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Really?  How

anniet wrote:

Really?  How astounding.  (/sarcasm)  So let me get this straight, you want to see children born into suffering?  That is the end result of your position.  No nice fantasy about social services turning all women into incredible mothers is going to erase this reality. 

 

How about we try making the 'fantasies' into reality?

 

Once again no program is 100% so get that thought out of your head/

 

anniet wrote:
For those of you advocating a level of reverence for the life capabilities represented by a fetus, what have you done to demonstrate this level of reverence for children born into bad circumstances?  If you are not willing to step up and actually take action to demonstrate your valuing of life once such a child is born, why are you asking that even more children be born into such circumstances?  What are you doing to ensure that the consequences of the position you are advocating for others is not the negative that is likely in reality, but closer to the positive that you would like the world to move towards?

 

Like I said, I am a big advocate or social services. I think the "pro-life" movement should also.

 

Also, where do you draw the line? How bad is too bad? What if the mother has the child willingly then falls on bad circumstances that will cause the already born child to suffer?

 

Or for that matter, once again, if you know you can't raise a kid than why not do your best to avoid having one?


 

anniet wrote:

Captain, I realize you are quite intelligent.  However, you have a tendancy to assume the world is how you want it to be not how it really is.  I realize I am setting an aggressive tone here with you.  I want to make sure you understand that this is not being done to hurt your feelings, but to get you to try and see that not everyone else's life is set-up like yours.  Take a moment to step outside of your comfortable existence please.  If you can't do that, then you should not be commenting on how others should face the choices they have to make in life as you are not capable of evaluating the consequences if you cannot even see what those consequences may be.

 

If the choices are so hard to make, why should they make them alone? This is why I think they should get a medical consulatation and possibly counsling as to why she wants to terminate the pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:How

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

How about we try making the 'fantasies' into reality?

 

Once again no program is 100% so get that thought out of your head/?

Great!  What are you doing to turn your fantasy into reality?  I really don't care about turning this particular fantasy into reality.  I have others that I am working on.  What is your plan for the meantime?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Where do you draw the line? How bad is too bad? What if the mother has the child willingly then falls on bad circumstances that will cause the already born child to suffer?

Why do you think anyone but the person incubating the fetus gets to draw that line?  If the child is already born, then it's born.  That's a separate issue.  Abortion focuses on cells that could become a child. 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Or for that matter, once again, if you know you can't raise a kid than why not do your best to avoid having one?

Accidents.  Poor planning.  Not giving a shit about consequences.  That is reality.  Again, you're retreating to a fantasy land where the whole issue can just be avoided.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
If the choices are so hard to make, why should they make them alone? This is why I think they should get a medical consulatation and possibly counsling as to why she wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Is the counselor going to be responsible for the consequences of the choice?  If not, then the person who bears the responsibility of the choice is the only one who can ultimately make the decision.  Free, voluntary counseling sounds like a nice idea.  I have no problem with the government (or another organization) providing counseling to people making complex decisions.  However, that should not be used as an opportunity to try and sway a person into making a decision that aligns with what the counselor wants rather than the needs of the person who bears the brunt of the consequences as we have seen happen with several organizations in this country.  Has Canada seen similar problems with religious based groups providing "free pregnancy services" ?

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Explain why a clump of cells

Explain why a clump of cells has more rights then a fully grown human woman, because you aren't saying they have the same rights, you are saying they have more. If they had the same rights then since the women isn't allowed to infringe on the clump of cell's rights and destroy the life they theoretically could have had, they don't have the right to destroy the life she theoretically could have. Unfortunately they are already doing that by existing.

Now I know you are going to say

Pineapple wrote:
Or for that matter, once again, if you know you can't raise a kid than why not do your best to avoid having one?
. And this line right here reveals everything I need to know about your argument.

You don't care about the fetus, you just don't like women who have sex. There are women in this world who have sex for fun, and don't want kids, and you don't like that, so you want to see them suffer while feeling moral about it. If you really wanted to help women who couldn't have kids avoid having them, you would not be removing one of the most assuredly effective tools women have to ensure that they don't have a kid when they can't support one. This is like saying that 'people should just do everything they can to avoid getting sick, so lets close all of the hospitals to encourage people to be healthy. Or else.'

Now I'm going to talk about why the 'they would have been a human' argument is retarded. You know what else would have been a human if given the chance? The millions of sperm that die every day that a guy doesn't have sex. I guess this means that guys should be legally obligated to do nothing but have sex all da...
.
.
Wait, I think we might be on to something here.
After all, under SmallChristian's system a guy can go and have as much sex as he wants, tell the girl he doesn't want the kid, and then never be forced to pay child support or endure hours of torture, years actually, while she has to suffer a life altering birth, possibly lose her job from excessive abscences, and live for the rest of her life with a constant reminder of how society said her rights to life and self determination were not as important as the phantom rights they decided to give a tumor.

You know what else, let's take the example about dying sperm back even further. Its possible that cows, in millions of years, could develop sentience and civilization. Does that mean they deserve the same rights as a sentient civilized being now because of what they could hypothetically become? Should we give the cows a seat at the UN and extend them the right to vote. I wonder how Obama would have done among the Bovine Populace.

Here's another problem with your 'If they can prove they cannot handle the child they can have an abortion' argument [I am responding to both the Captain and the Small one at the same time, splicing their arguments together because this is a rant and I rant like this] it essentially proves that you don't really care about the child at all. After all, if you really did care about the child you would still force the woman to have the child and then adopt it out, what the argument really is is simply that you don't like it when girls have sex without wanting a child.

Case in Point, if anti-abortionists are so vehemently pro-life then why are they demanding that women destroy their lives in order to give the mangled pieces to a hypothetical person who is nothing more than a parasitic clump of cells, little more than a cancerous growth?

See, that's the problem with anti-abortion people. They try to dress themselves up all nice and pretty with the 'pro-life' phrase when life never enters into it.

The debate isn't pro-choice vs pro-life, it's pro-choice vs anti-women.

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:RatDog

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

RatDog wrote:

I personal find this less moral then abortion because dogs in my opinion are more capable of suffering then fetuses.  To answer your question I think that not wanting a fetus is adequate reason for an abortion.

 

There are plenty of ways to kill people without them suffering, so I think the whole question of unwanted children who are already born stands.

    It isn’t about suffering, it isn’t about ability to think, and it isn’t about being aware of ones mortality.  It’s all about whether or not a fetuses should be considered a full fledge human being.  Human beings have human rights under human laws.  If a fetus is considered to be human under a society’s laws then it must be given all of the right that entitles it to. If that is the case then abortion is murder.  In American and many other places all people are considered equal, if a fetus is equal to any other human being then people who have abortions should be prosecuted for first degree murder.  There is not way around this that I can see. 


    Now tell me do you honestly feel that a woman who has an abortion should be thought of the same way as someone who takes a gun goes out and shoots someone?  In an earlier question you said that you would rather save a three year old child then 100 billion fertilized eggs.  Would you say the same thing if you considered those 100 billion eggs to be human beings?  If a woman is raped would you considered it ok for her to have an abortion?  Do you really consider fetus the same way you consider the people you live and work with every day.

 
    If a fetus is not a human being then I don’t see how abortions are any less moral then killing animals for food or putting down stray dogs at the pound.  Perhaps I’m looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that this issue is pretty black and white.  Is or is not a fetus a full fledged human being entitled to all the right and privileges that any other human being is entitled to?
 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Great!  What

anniet wrote:

Great!  What are you doing to turn your fantasy into reality?  I really don't care about turning this particular fantasy into reality.  I have others that I am working on.  What is your plan for the meantime?

 

 

By voting and selecting candidates that support such programs.

 

Also political activism.

 

 

anniet wrote:

Why do you think anyone but the person incubating the fetus gets to draw that line?  If the child is already born, then it's born.  That's a separate issue.  Abortion focuses on cells that could become a child. 

 

 

What do you mean by 'could'? In all probability, the cells will become a child.

 

 

 

anniet wrote:

Accidents.  Poor planning.  Not giving a shit about consequences.  That is reality.  Again, you're retreating to a fantasy land where the whole issue can just be avoided.

 

 

We can discourage poor planning and not giving a shit about consequences, by well, listing the consequences i.e having a kid.

 

Accidents happen, but they are rather rare IIRC.

 

 

anniet wrote:

Is the counselor going to be responsible for the consequences of the choice?  If not, then the person who bears the responsibility of the choice is the only one who can ultimately make the decision.  Free, voluntary counseling sounds like a nice idea.  I have no problem with the government (or another organization) providing counseling to people making complex decisions.  However, that should not be used as an opportunity to try and sway a person into making a decision that aligns with what the counselor wants rather than the needs of the person who bears the brunt of the consequences as we have seen happen with several organizations in this country. 

 

 

But counselors can still help. I'm sure some counselors will do that, but that's not a reason to ditch the idea completly.

 

 

 

anniet wrote:

Has Canada seen similar problems with religious based groups providing "free pregnancy services" ?

 

From what I've seen Canada has a bunch of groups that give out information, my university has several of them.

 

 

Sinphanius wrote:


You don't care about the fetus, you just don't like women who have sex.

 

This is like saying that 'people should just do everything they can to avoid getting sick, so lets close all of the hospitals to encourage people to be healthy. Or else.'

 

Oh bullshit, people don't "choose" to get sick, and I don't hate women who have sex.

 

Unless it's rape, they choose to engage in an act that could get them pregnant. If you didn't want to get the flu, would you hang around people with the flu? At least use some form of birth control.

 

 

Honestly, if you haven't noticed, I am choosing my words carefully to avoid making this another topic about me, rather than my position.

 

Sinphanius wrote:


Now I'm going to talk about why the 'they would have been a human' argument is retarded. You know what else would have been a human if given the chance? The millions of sperm that die every day that a guy doesn't have sex. I guess this means that guys should be legally obligated to do nothing but have sex all da...

 

 

A sperm on it's own has a 0% chance of producing a child.

 

Sinphanius wrote:


You know what else, let's take the example about dying sperm back even further. Its possible that cows, in millions of years, could develop sentience and civilization. Does that mean they deserve the same rights as a sentient civilized being now because of what they could hypothetically become? Should we give the cows a seat at the UN and extend them the right to vote. I wonder how Obama would have done among the Bovine Populace.

 

We KNOW that fetuses develop into children.

 

 

Sinphanius wrote:

The debate isn't pro-choice vs pro-life, it's pro-choice vs anti-women.

 

 

How is it anti-women?

 

How would you feel if I said "It's pro-life against anti-child"?

 

 

RatDog wrote:

    It isn’t about suffering, it isn’t about ability to think, and it isn’t about being aware of ones mortality.  It’s all about whether or not a fetuses should be considered a full fledge human being.  Human beings have human rights under human laws.  If a fetus is considered to be human under a society’s laws then it must be given all of the right that entitles it to. If that is the case then abortion is murder.  In American and many other places all people are considered equal, if a fetus is equal to any other human being then people who have abortions should be prosecuted for first degree murder.  There is not way around this that I can see. 

It's still life, but not a full human being yet. Just like a two year old child isn't completly developed and yet has the basic rights of a human.


 

 

RatDog wrote:

    Now tell me do you honestly feel that a woman who has an abortion should be thought of the same way as someone who takes a gun goes out and shoots someone? 

 

I don't think it's the same legally, but I don't see that much of a difference.


 

RatDog wrote:

 

 
    If a fetus is not a human being then I don’t see how abortions are any less moral then killing animals for food or putting down stray dogs at the pound.  Perhaps I’m looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that this issue is pretty black and white.  Is or is not a fetus a full fledged human being entitled to all the right and privileges that any other human being is entitled to?
 

 

 

I think it should have as much rights as possible, but if it is in danger or the mother is than those rights are lifted.

 

 

 

 

 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:RatDog

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

RatDog wrote:

    It isn’t about suffering, it isn’t about ability to think, and it isn’t about being aware of ones mortality.  It’s all about whether or not a fetuses should be considered a full fledge human being.  Human beings have human rights under human laws.  If a fetus is considered to be human under a society’s laws then it must be given all of the right that entitles it to. If that is the case then abortion is murder.  In American and many other places all people are considered equal, if a fetus is equal to any other human being then people who have abortions should be prosecuted for first degree murder.  There is not way around this that I can see. 

It's still life, but not a full human being yet. Just like a two year old child isn't completly developed and yet has the basic rights of a human.

Yes, at some point during its development a fetus becomes a full human and becomes entitled to basic human rights.  Before a fetus reaches this point in development why shouldn't the mother be able to abort it?  Before it reaches that point why should it have any more rights then any other non human living thing?

 
By the way I consider a two year old child, a five day old baby and an 87 year old man all fully human and entitled to the same basic human rights.  

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

RatDog wrote:

    Now tell me do you honestly feel that a woman who has an abortion should be thought of the same way as someone who takes a gun goes out and shoots someone? 

 

I don't think it's the same legally, but I don't see that much of a difference.

If you don't see much of a difference do you think that these two things should be treated the same legaly?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

RatDog wrote:


    If a fetus is not a human being then I don’t see how abortions are any less moral then killing animals for food or putting down stray dogs at the pound.  Perhaps I’m looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that this issue is pretty black and white.  Is or is not a fetus a full fledged human being entitled to all the right and privileges that any other human being is entitled to?
 

I think it should have as much rights as possible, but if it is in danger or the mother is than those rights are lifted.

If a fetus is not a human being then why should it have any more rights then any other living thing that isn't human?


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:By

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

By voting and selecting candidates that support such programs.

 

Also political activism.

Political activism - in what form?  Talking in chat rooms?  That is not going to change the reality of the situation for the women involved.  Again, you're avoiding an issue - what should be done in the here and now as the changes you propose are not in effect right now?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What do you mean by 'could'? In all probability, the cells will become a child.
emphasis added by me

Could means there is not a 100% probability.  Have you ever heard of miscarriage and stillbirth?  Why are you dodging questions and picking at a word you know the definition of?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
We can discourage poor planning and not giving a shit about consequences, by well, listing the consequences i.e having a kid.

 

Accidents happen, but they are rather rare IIRC.

  

Discourage it all you want.  In reality poor planning and not caring exist.  What do you propose to do about the consequences?  Whether or not accidents are rare is immaterial.  What do you propose to do about them when they occur? 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
But counselors can still help. I'm sure some counselors will do that, but that's not a reason to ditch the idea completly.

I'm not advocating ditching the idea completely.  I'm saying you're not addressing the issue.  Quite frankly, in many cases counseling is a bandaid for a wound that is gushing blood all over the floor.

 If you want to advocate implementing a policy that legally interferes with a woman's reproduction you need to show good reason for doing so.  All I've heard from you so far is that women shouldn't get pregnant unless they are planning to do so and if for some reason a woman does end up with an unwanted pregnancy she needs a counselor because the idea of abortion makes you uncomfortable.  This may be how you structure your life, but it completely ignores the fact that not everyone is going to set their life up like yours.  You ignore the fact that a woman has the right to evaluate the consequences of her options and make decisions based on that evaluation.  Does a woman have the right to the integrity of her body or do you feel that should be ceded to the community?  If so, give valid and consistent reasons why.  (For example - If a fetus is a child then abortion is wrong in the case of rape and the woman aborting is the same as a woman who kills her already born child.  If a fetus is not a child, then what is it and why does it have the right to occupy a foreign body? )  Is your body yours or does it belong to the state?

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 And people don't choose to

 And people don't choose to get pregnant (sometimes they do, but as these people would not be seeking abortions they are inconsequential to this debate), they engage in behavior that could get them pregnant, just like people engage in behavior that could get them sick, ie living, as germs that cause illness are everywhere. What happens if the couple uses protection but it doesn't work? Didn't you see that episode of Friends? They did everything they could to not get pregnant, with the exception of fighting the past 5 million years of genetic training of course.

I have noticed that you have been trying to keep this on the issue, unfortunately the issue ultimately boils down to why you don't think women should be allowed to get abortions, and I would be willing to drop this point if it weren't the focal point of your argument.

Quote:
A sperm on it's own has a 0% chance of producing a child.

And a fertilized egg on its own without the vaginal wall to provide nutrients to it has a 0% chance of producing a child. If the sperm doesn't deserve rights because on its own it won't produce a child then the same logic can be applied to the fertilized egg or the fetus. And this provides a very nice, clean, easy line of demarcation for what point an abortion becomes murder; when the child is capable of surviving being extracted from the womb.

Personally, this is the line that divides the clumps of cells from the people, as far as I am concerned. 

Quote:
We KNOW that fetuses develop into children.

Yes, yes we do. Except when it doesn't of course. This entire issue revolves around saving the hypothetical life of a clump of cells that can so very easily be eliminated. There are thousands of ways a newborn can die, or never be born alive in the first place. We can generally assume that a fetus will develop into a child if it is not disturbed, but the process is far from certain. Ultimately however, I am willing to concede this point because the mere fact that the life is purely hypothetical at this point was never really a focal point of my argument. My argument has always been that the fetus, until it is capable of surviving on its own, is little more than a cancerous growth inside the woman, and therefore subject to any whim she would care to exert upon it as it is still a part of her body at this time.

Quote:
How is it anti-women?

How would you feel if I said "It's pro-life against anti-child"?

Because ultimately all you are doing is punishing the women for having sex. That is all that is accomplished, that and ensuring that the world population keeps becoming harder to sustain, and possibly making a child's life miserable as it exists in quiet knowledge it is completely unwanted. I wouldn't care what you call it because you are still raising the rights of a clump of cells over those of the woman carrying it in an attempt to punish the woman for having sex. The fact that you allow for the possibility of rape victims still getting abortions proves this. If it were really about the life of the potential child then it wouldn't matter under what circumstances the child was conceived.

I will say it again, the fetus is not a child, not yet, and until it is a child it should not be treated like a child.
Oh, and please tell me why you are raising the rights of a clump of cells above those of the woman bearing it.

Ultimately, here is my question. Since we can eliminate the negative consequences of sex (for the most part), why shouldn't we?
Another question; What gives you the right to dictate what someone else may do with her body?
And if nothing gives you that right, then what makes the Fetus a seperate entity from the woman carrying it?


 

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
"Pro-lifers" are some of the

"Pro-lifers" are some of the least imaginative people on the planet.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Cpt_pineapple

anniet wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

By voting and selecting candidates that support such programs.

 

Also political activism.

Political activism - in what form?  Talking in chat rooms?  That is not going to change the reality of the situation for the women involved.  Again, you're avoiding an issue - what should be done in the here and now as the changes you propose are not in effect right now?

 

 

 

Captain, this remark was beyond aggressive and into rude and I do apologize.  Please do take this portion of the previous comment as just:

You do still need to address what should be done in the here and now as the changes you propose are not in effect right now and women who do not want to be are pregnant today. 

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:  I realize

Balkoth wrote:

  I realize you're playing Devil's Advocate, but how would you define equal say, let alone practically apply it?

Contract law. Seriously. If two ( or more ) people wish to enter into a relationship, have a contract drawn up detailing the nature of the relationship as well as the obligations of the participants. Gas station bathrooms could have a coin-op machine that dispensed limited duration ( 1-24 hour ) contracts for flings, and more detailed, specific contracts could be written by a lawyer or paralegal for anything longer. These could include responsibility for any children, monogomy clauses, who is responsible for birth control, financial obligations, and just about anything else that has to be determined by a court when divorce procedings are in order. Long term relationship contracts would take a little time to write, but they would eliminate a lot of the complications of divorce, child custody, and child support.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Would this work Desdenova?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I'm going to step back

Okay, I'm going to step back for a bit until I do more research into the subject.

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote: Would

Sinphanius wrote:

 Would this work Desdenova?

"Should I go get my lawyer?" For the love of all that is just and right in the world, YES!

 

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote: Would

Sinphanius wrote:

 Would this work Desdenova?

LMAO

Yeah, as damned funny as that was, it is pretty close to what I am talking about.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are plenty of

Quote:
There are plenty of ways to kill people without them suffering, so I think the whole question of unwanted children who are already born stands.

Incorrect.

The (arguably) most painless way to euthanize a person would be through nitrogen asphyxiation, and this (as far as we're currently aware) appears to cause no suffering on the part of the individual being euthanized.

However, within the current zeitgeist, there is no way to kill someone (regardless of how humanely) without causing considerable suffering via relatives, friends, etc. Personally, I'm all for euthanasia - but we would need to change the overall perspective on death first.

Quote:
What if I wanted to get rid of ALL of your cells? I mean they're just cells right? Or maybe just all your heart cells?

Absurdist.

Taking out a live human being's heart inflicts immense pain and suffering. An embryo cannot experience anything akin to this.

Quote:
modern medicine has come a long way. They can determine if the mother or baby will die

'They' cannot, even in the industrialized world. Yes, there are still stillbirths and complications fatal to the mother in our technical civilization.

I want to look at the word 'they' here though, as it attaches a few eyebrow-lifting assumptions about 'modern medicine'. Can 'they' do this in 3rd world nations, for example?

Quote:
I don't like the whole "don't judge me" view

Except when it applies to you, of course. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
What about the psychological issues of ending a pregnancy?

These are grossly overplayed. A mother who does not want a child and opts for abortion will not suffer as greivously as a mother who loses a child they carried to term.

Quote:
I think birth control is the best option, besides  the dreaded 'A' word.

I agree, if only from a standpoint of pragmatism. However, birth control does not always work, and in some instances is outright precluded (rape is a good example, as is victimization by 'abstinence only' sex 'education' and religious bigotry in general).

Quote:
Anyway, I'm sure being in a state foster home or whatever is better than not being alive at all.

You're 'sure'? Have you ever been in a state foster home?

If not, it's odd that you can be 'sure' that living in such an environment is 'better' than non-existence.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: This

Hambydammit wrote:

 This video speaks for itself.

 

 

Nooo not Libertyville! I'm pretty sure these people (or at least members of the same activist group) have protested in my hometown, which is about an hour and a half away from where this video was filmed. Their favorite spot was on a road several blocks from my house, which I used to travel to school every day, so I saw them waving their posters & bibles around every few weeks when they were in town. Because posterboards featuring (inaccurate) images of infants with bloody severed limbs is exactly what I wanted to see at 7:45 in the morning.

Anyways, these people need to get a clue. Abortion is NOT the mutilation of full-grown infants, as many of their posters would mislead one to think. With regards to the video, they need to get their story and opinions straight. Either abortion should be illegal, and therefore carry with it the necessary sanctions and consequences surrounding it, or not. The interviewees' hesitance in sending young women to jail is absurd - after all, many young women are jailed for other crimes under the current laws. They need to either get over it, or else pack up their shit and stop creating an unwelcome eyesore for motorists.

Sorry, I didn't intend for this to turn into a mini-rant. Having survived being the only pro-choice person at my religious high school, I have very little patience left for pro-lifers. I probably won't interfere anymore, but let the debate continue! We now return to your regularly scheduled program....


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:...they do not

aiia wrote:

...

they do not think. They admit it.

Too right they don't, it would not have been difficult to turn such a line of questioning around -- to force abortion into illegal practice is to render it unsafe and undesirable or otherwise expensive and unattainable. The women, in such a case, suffer a penalty for the action one way or another thus the penalty of law would be more appropriately aimed at the practitioner. Hypothetically speaking, of course, I'm not weighing in on the actual debate here.

That said, I can think of a penalty to answer that question which the rabidly religious pro-lifers would salivate for -- public exposure : If you are caught having an illegal abortion, your full name and city of residence will be printed in the church weekly all over the country.

Again, not weighing in on the debate, just offering some hypotheticals -- I'm not really pro anything in regards to abortion I tend to think that the real issues lie elsewhere in the social fabric, undesirable pregnancy and its associated demons are symptoms that could check themselves in a better educated more socially just and rational world.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:However,

Kevin R Brown wrote:
However, within the current zeitgeist, there is no way to kill someone (regardless of how humanely) without causing considerable suffering via relatives, friends, etc.

 

What about her relatives? The people looking forward to a grandchild, cousing, nephew/neice etcc/

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Taking out a live human being's heart inflicts immense pain and suffering. An embryo cannot experience anything akin to this.

 

 

I'm curious as to why suffering will matter, since the person will soon be dead, sometimes mere seconds afterwards.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

'They' cannot, even in the industrialized world. Yes, there are still stillbirths and complications fatal to the mother in our technical civilization.

I want to look at the word 'they' here though, as it attaches a few eyebrow-lifting assumptions about 'modern medicine'. Can 'they' do this in 3rd world nations, for example?

I'm not talking about curing them, I'm talking about detecting them. They can do this with remarkable accuracy.

 

The 3rd world is a whole new kettle of fish.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

These are grossly overplayed. A mother who does not want a child and opts for abortion will not suffer as greivously as a mother who loses a child they carried to term.

 

See first response

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I agree, if only from a standpoint of pragmatism. However, birth control does not always work, and in some instances is outright precluded (rape is a good example, as is victimization by 'abstinence only' sex 'education' and religious bigotry in general).

 

Once again if she engages in consenual sex, she knows she might get pregnant. With rights come responsibilites.

 

I've already said rape was a seperate issue.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You're 'sure'? Have you ever been in a state foster home?

If not, it's odd that you can be 'sure' that living in such an environment is 'better' than non-existence.

 

No it's not odd.

 

Are you sure living in Spain is better than non-existence?

 

Not all foster programs will be 100% efficent, just like paramedics won't get 100% of patients to the hospital alive, or firefighters won't save 100% of the houses they respond to.

 

All those programs do is increase the probability of success.

 

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What about her relatives? The people looking forward to a grandchild, cousing, nephew/neice etcc/
They don't have a stake in the responsibility and thus have no say in the choices.


Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Once again if she engages in consenual sex, she knows she might get pregnant. With rights come responsibilites.
It is unreasonable to expect people to be entirely rational about their sexual choices since the urge to mate is the among strongest primal urges we have. Pregnancy termination stands as the last defense against error of judgment as well as failure of contra-fertilization technologies.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
No it's not odd.

 

Are you sure living in Spain is better than non-existence?

 

Not all foster programs will be 100% efficent, just like paramedics won't get 100% of patients to the hospital alive, or firefighters won't save 100% of the houses they respond to.

 

All those programs do is increase the probability of success.

Were firefighters to cause social disorders in 8 of 10 people they helped, it may as well be considered better to let people's houses burn to the ground. Foster care has a far higher failure rate and a far higher cost per person than paramedicine programs, and it is harder to find qualified people to run foster programs.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Once

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Once again if she engages in consenual sex, she knows she might get pregnant. With rights come responsibilites.

Knowing that you are not capable of raising, or even carrying a child to term, and aborting is making a responsible decision.  How is it responsible to know that you cannot care for a child for whatever reason(s) and then bring one into this world?  Pawning the responsibility off on someone else (adoption and foster care) is not actually taking responsibility, but asking someone else to releave you of the responsibility for your decision.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to look more into

I'm going to look more into foster programs.

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

It is unreasonable to expect people to be entirely rational about their sexual choices since the urge to mate is the among strongest primal urges we have. Pregnancy termination stands as the last defense against error of judgment as well as failure of contra-fertilization technologies.

 

 

People can still overcome those urges with realization of why they have them, and what could happen if urges gets the better of them.

 

anniet wrote:

Knowing that you are not capable of raising, or even carrying a child to term, and aborting is making a responsible decision.  How is it responsible to know that you cannot care for a child for whatever reason(s) and then bring one into this world?  Pawning the responsibility off on someone else (adoption and foster care) is not actually taking responsibility, but asking someone else to releave you of the responsibility for your decision.

 

She has a responsibility to provide the child with as much opportunities as possible. If adoption/foster care are the best solution, then her respsonsibility will be full filled.

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:People

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
People can still overcome those urges with realization of why they have them, and what could happen if urges gets the better of them.
Prove that.

No foreknowledge is going to help when the instincts are screaming "SEX! NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Once again if she walks

"Once again if she walks around outside, she knows she might get sick. With rights come responsibilites."
(slightly edited)

We try as hard as we can to eliminate the possible negative side effects of walking around outside, why shouldn't we do the same thing for having Sex?

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What about her

Quote:
What about her relatives? The people looking forward to a grandchild, cousing, nephew/neice etcc/

What about them? You're equivocating suffering with disappointment.

Do you remember when you declined my (silly) request for pictures of you after you said you were wearing shorts and a tank top? Would you agree that it would be unreasonable for me to argue that you caused me to 'suffer' by failing to consent to my request, and moreover, are thereby to be held liable for causing distress by not bending to the whims of others?

If you do, I imagine you can also see that the argument above is a poor one.

Quote:
I'm curious as to why suffering will matter, since the person will soon be dead, sometimes mere seconds afterwards.

Assuming shock didn't immediately flick your lights out, you'd be around for quite a few good second to experience likely the mot excrutiating pain you've ever experienced (or ever will) as your body alerts you to a critical problem.

'Why would it matter' is another absurdist position. You wouldn't want that sort of pain inflicted upon yourself, and so empathetically know why it would be a terrible thing to force onto another person.

Quote:
The 3rd world is a whole new kettle of fish

Africa is not a 'whole new kettle of fish'. Abortion would help the region immensely, at least as much proper contraceptive use, so there's a very real connection to problems in the 3rd world and problems with 'sexual morality' and 'pro-choice' advocation.

Again, I want to point-out the error in citing modern medicine as though it means the same thing regardless of your location and financial capacity in the world.

Quote:
Once again if she engages in consenual sex, she knows she might get pregnant.

No, you and I know she might get pregnant. A naive girl (or guy, for that matter) who have never been taught anything other than that it's naughty to put their different parts together do not necessarily know that it will result in impregnation. Moreover, there are a considerable number of young adults with any one or combination of the following problems:

 - Believing that praying can prevent pregnancy

 - Believing that they will be judged harshly if they go to buy contraceptives (since their parents or religious authorities judge sexual experimentation so harshly), so they cannot muster the will to buy them

 - Fearing that their invasive parents will find their contraceptives if they buy any, so they don't buy any

 - Fearing that buying contraceptives / knowledge about sex is a causal agent of sex, so they keep themselves ignorant and refuse to buy contraceptives

As Jill has said, it is unrealistic to expect young adults to remain abstinent. We're hard-wired to become sexually active at that stage, and while we can make conscious choices about what we, any honest person must admit that our emotions rule us more often than our rational thoughts do.

Quote:
With rights come responsibilites

...Well, Alison, I'm going to turn this around on you then:

Do you own any contraceptives? Judging by your attitude towards having any fun, and as you aren't sexually active, my guess is 'no'. So, are you precognitively psychic? Can you foresee the future? Again, my guess is 'no'.

(Just FYI, my answer to those questions is also 'no')

So, by your own reasoning, you're an irresponsible girl (naughty, naughty! Sticking out tongue)

 

Since you don't know what's going to happen in a day, you also don't know if - by some chance - prince charming might happen to blindside you and sweep you off of your feet in the evening. What do you do, then? Having never entertained the possibility of this scenario, young women like yourself are left entirely unprepared - and, frankly, there is no credible way of saying that you'd pause in the throes of romance to head to Shopper's Drug Mart and pick-up a package of Trojans.

Even if you did, do you know how it should be used to minimize the chance of it breaking?

 

It's not reasonable to expect people to have incredible foresight, or to be prepared for every unlikely event in the future. We're imperfect beings - we make mistakes and have moments of poor judgement. It is downright ignorance of the human condition, IMHO, to argue that people should be made to suffer for/live with a transgression than can easily be undone and forgiven instead simply because that person made a conscious decision that lead to said transgression.

Quote:
I've already said rape was a seperate issue.

...How is it a separate issue? It seems more like it's one you don't want to address simply because it invalidates your argument wholesale. Vaginal raping leads to pregnancy, often unwanted. All the same conditions still apply, except the mother's consent (in otherwords, your argument falls apart). The fetus is still a fetus, and aborting it still destroys that 'potential human being'.

So I don't see how you can argue that abortion shouldn't be allowed except in rare circumstances because it kills a potential human being, and yet include rape within the 'rare circumstance' category for no particular reason.

Quote:

No it's not odd.

 

Are you sure living in Spain is better than non-existence?

I'm fairly sure about Spain, because I have fairly good information about Spain. Didn't you just fnish saying earlier than you had essentially no knowledge about foster homes?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift

JillSwift wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
People can still overcome those urges with realization of why they have them, and what could happen if urges gets the better of them.
Prove that.

No foreknowledge is going to help when the instincts are screaming "SEX! NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

 

 

I know quite a few people that do.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What about them? You're equivocating suffering with disappointment.

 

I mentioned them because you mentioned the relatives of people who would be killed without suffering

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

'Why would it matter' is another absurdist position. You wouldn't want that sort of pain inflicted upon yourself, and so empathetically know why it would be a terrible thing to force onto another person.

 

Exactly, did you know 100% of the "pro-choice" movement were once fetuses?

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Africa is not a 'whole new kettle of fish'. Abortion would help the region immensely, at least as much proper contraceptive use, so there's a very real connection to problems in the 3rd world and problems with 'sexual morality' and 'pro-choice' advocation.

 

I'm talking about abortion in U.S/Canada and other industrialized countries, because countries like Africa don't have the resources/ stability of some African countries.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

No, you and I know she might get pregnant. A naive girl (or guy, for that matter) who have never been taught anything other than that it's naughty to put their different parts together do not necessarily know that it will result in impregnation. Moreover, there are a considerable number of young adults with any one or combination of the following problems:

 - Believing that praying can prevent pregnancy

 - Believing that they will be judged harshly if they go to buy contraceptives (since their parents or religious authorities judge sexual experimentation so harshly), so they cannot muster the will to buy them

 - Fearing that their invasive parents will find their contraceptives if they buy any, so they don't buy any

 - Fearing that buying contraceptives / knowledge about sex is a causal agent of sex, so they keep themselves ignorant and refuse to buy contraceptives

 

I'm quite sure the baby making part is taught in every school and is quite common knowledge.

 

I think the contraceptives should have a better slogan:"Better than an abortion"

 

 

Kinda like this commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Since you don't know what's going to happen in a day, you also don't know if - by some chance - prince charming might happen to blindside you and sweep you off of your feet in the evening. What do you do, then? Having never entertained the possibility of this scenario, young women like yourself are left entirely unprepared - and, frankly, there is no credible way of saying that you'd pause in the throes of romance to head to Shopper's Drug Mart and pick-up a package of Trojans.

Even if you did, do you know how it should be used to minimize the chance of it breaking?

 

It's not reasonable to expect people to have incredible foresight, or to be prepared for every unlikely event in the future. We're imperfect beings - we make mistakes and have moments of poor judgement. It is downright ignorance of the human condition, IMHO, to argue that people should be made to suffer for/live with a transgression than can easily be undone and forgiven instead simply because that person made a conscious decision that lead to said transgression.

 

 

If I were interested in sexual relations I would carry the approiate gear. And the reason I'm fairly confident I won't let "Prine Charming"do me, is because I don't want kids.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

...How is it a separate issue? It seems more like it's one you don't want to address simply because it invalidates your argument wholesale. Vaginal raping leads to pregnancy, often unwanted. All the same conditions still apply, except the mother's consent (in otherwords, your argument falls apart). The fetus is still a fetus, and aborting it still destroys that 'potential human being'.

So I don't see how you can argue that abortion shouldn't be allowed except in rare circumstances because it kills a potential human being, and yet include rape within the 'rare circumstance' category for no particular reason.

 

 

 

What's different is as you point out is consent. She doesn't want to have children [and even is she did, it's different, because the father would be some rapist creep] and she did nothing willingly.

 

That's why it's different.

 

 

 

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I know

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I know quite a few people that do.

  1. Anecdote is not proof.
  2. "Quite a few" is no where near everyone.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift

JillSwift wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I know quite a few people that do.

  1. Anecdote is not proof.
  2. "Quite a few" is no where near everyone.

 

 

it shows it can be done.

 

I have no idea what other people's sex drive entail, but I would think that it's not completley uncontrolable

 

 

 

 

and since I can't edit my comment since it was quoted

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

I'm talking about abortion in U.S/Canada and other industrialized countries, because countries like Africa don't have the resources/ stability of some African countries.

 

I mean that countries in Africa don't have the resources/stability of other industrialized countries.

 

I'm no Sarah Palin.

 

 

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Kinda

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

Kinda like this commercial:

That is exactly why I wear rubbers, but I'm not going to stop having sex out of fear of it happening. Your seeming lack of sex drive does not translate on to other people. Why is it that you find sex so undesirable? That must be the root of the issue, other wise rape would not be a factor. It's been said before, but I will say it again. It seems like you want to punish women for having sex.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:That is

spike.barnett wrote:

That is exactly why I wear rubbers, but I'm not going to stop having sex out of fear of it happening. Your seeming lack of sex drive does not translate on to other people. Why is it that you find sex so undesirable? That must be the root of the issue, other wise rape would not be a factor. It's been said before, but I will say it again. It seems like you want to punish women for having sex.

 

As I've said before, I don't want this to spiral into a tangent, so I'll only answer things relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Rape is a factor because it's not consensual.

 

And no I don't want to 'punish women who have sex', I want to make them aware of the consequences, they are free to engage in those activities, but they must know what could come out of it.

 

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, Captain a lot could

Well, Captain a lot could come out of it.  So what?  Why should woman be committed to bearing a child to birth at all, ever, in any circumstance just because she got pregnant?  What exactly is your rationale here?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:anniet

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

anniet wrote:

Knowing that you are not capable of raising, or even carrying a child to term, and aborting is making a responsible decision.  How is it responsible to know that you cannot care for a child for whatever reason(s) and then bring one into this world?  Pawning the responsibility off on someone else (adoption and foster care) is not actually taking responsibility, but asking someone else to releave you of the responsibility for your decision.

 

She has a responsibility to provide the child with as much opportunities as possible. If adoption/foster care are the best solution, then her responsibility will be full filled.

Foster care is a horrible solution.  I wouldn't even describe it as a solution.  (I know you stated that you are going to follow-up on this topic more .  )

If a woman for whatever reason decides she would rather gestate a fetus and give the child up for adoption, I really don't care.  What I do find interesting is that getting someone else to take responsibility for a situation a person is in is seen as somehow more desirable than having the person creating the situation solve it themselves.  Why should we ask women to serve as incubators for 9 months and then have them ask others to raise the children that result from this?  Why should we ask them not to take responsibility for the situation they are in, but rather pass it off onto someone else?

Also, what about the women who realize they are not going to be able to responsibly allow a fetus to grow into a child within their body?  If they are responsible enough to know that they are likely to create a child with health and/or mental issues from the behaviors they will engage in during those 9 months, why would you ask them to continue to carry the fetus?  Please don't reply with counseling in this scenario as even the best counseling takes longer than the gestation period to pay off and create real change within a person's life.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I think the issue between

I think the issue between pro choice and antiabortion is a false dichotomy.

I don't see any justification for aborting a healthy 7, 8, or 9 mouth old fetus; but I do not see any argument that can justify giving a 1 mouth old fetus jurisdiction over the pregnant woman either. I think a woman should be allowed to get an abortion for any reason in the first 6 mouths, then allowed restricted options after that and no option at 9 months other than health.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Well, Captain

Thomathy wrote:

Well, Captain a lot could come out of it.  So what?  Why should woman be committed to bearing a child to birth at all, ever, in any circumstance just because she got pregnant?  What exactly is your rationale here?

 

If you break your leg doing snowboard jumps, should you have to wear a cast and feel pain in the leg just because you decided to do snowboard jumps? You see, by engaging in the activity [in this case taking jumps while snowboarding], you know something could happen that you didn't want to happen [such as breaking your leg].

 

anniet wrote:

Also, what about the women who realize they are not going to be able to responsibly allow a fetus to grow into a child within their body?  If they are responsible enough to know that they are likely to create a child with health and/or mental issues from the behaviors they will engage in during those 9 months, why would you ask them to continue to carry the fetus?  Please don't reply with counseling in this scenario as even the best counseling takes longer than the gestation period to pay off and create real change within a person's life.

 

 

I don't know. If the mother is a smoker for example, I don't know what should be done. Doesn't mean we should stop looking for another solution.

 

 

 

And for that matter, if the fetus is "just a lump of cells", than what's wrong with a mother smoking while pregnant? I mean, it's not like she's harming a human right? It could just potientially have effects on the child right?

 

 

 

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:If you

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
If you break your leg doing snowboard jumps, should you have to wear a cast and feel pain in the leg just because you decided to do snowboard jumps? You see, by engaging in the activity [in this case taking jumps while snowboarding], you know something could happen that you didn't want to happen [such as breaking your leg].
Was that supposed to be analogous?  No one who snowboards has any choice but to endure the consequences of their actions.  When a woman gets pregnant, however, there are ways to undo that particular consequence of unprotected intercourse.  I don't advocate it as ideal, but clearly there are, in Canada, some 110,000 abortions annually.  At least some women find it a necessary course of action.  What would your alternative be?  Some women are going to get pregant and not have wanted to.  What, Captain, is the problem with that?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:If you

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If you break your leg doing snowboard jumps, should you have to wear a cast and feel pain in the leg just because you decided to do snowboard jumps? You see, by engaging in the activity [in this case taking jumps while snowboarding], you know something could happen that you didn't want to happen [such as breaking your leg].

Yea, you have to take the consequences for your love of winter sports!  Actually you shouldn't even get to ware a cast.  You should be forced to be lame for the rest of your life!  That will teach you!  In fact why not go further.  We should even deny them the use of pain killers.  That will teach them not to have any fun!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I mentioned them

Quote:
I mentioned them because you mentioned the relatives of people who would be killed without suffering

Exactly - this is a false equivocation. A relative of a girl who gets an abortion may be disappointed, but that is not suffering in the same way that a frend or family member of, say, a suicide victim suffers.

Quote:
Exactly, did you know 100% of the "pro-choice" movement were once fetuses?

...And your point? When I was fetus, I had no consciousness nor any capacity to feel pain - likewise with all other fetuses. Destroying fetuses does not inflict any pain; ripping-out someone's still-beating heart, however, does. You're making false analogies.

Why did you put pro-choice in quotes?

Quote:
I'm talking about abortion in U.S/Canada and other industrialized countries, because countries like Africa don't have the resources/ stability of some African countries.

You're committed to special pleading, in otherwords.

Quote:
I'm quite sure the baby making part is taught in every school and is quite common knowledge.

Then you're mistaken.

Quote:
If I were interested in sexual relations I would carry the approiate gear. And the reason I'm fairly confident I won't let "Prine Charming"do me, is because I don't want kids.

'Special Snowflake' syndrome. You're so much higher and mightier than the rest of those pathetic, emotional girls, aren't you Alison?

Quote:

What's different is as you point out is consent. She doesn't want to have children [and even is she did, it's different, because the father would be some rapist creep] and she did nothing willingly.

 

That's why it's different.

You dodged the question. How is it different in terms of what it means for the fetus? Afterall, from your perspective, the fetus is just an innocent bystander, isn't it?

 

Your snowboarding analogy is another false one, too. Note that when a snowboarder breaks his leg, we use modern medical treatment (at some expense) to heal it up; we don't force him to walk with a broken leg for the rest of his life. If we had the ability to instantly mend bones, he wouldn't really have to deal with said consequences at all - in other words, the consequence's magnitude shrinks with our capacity to undo any damage done.

You seem to be rejecting modern medical science in this area specifically because you feel, for whatever reason, that girls should have to live with babies they don't want should they get pregnant having sex. For that demographic specifically, this consequence should be made permanent. You do want to dole-out punishment to those who have sex - perhaps more specifically, to anyone who isn't a perfect little snowflake like yourself.

What if I proposed that anyone who is disfigured in a car accident should get no medical treatment? Afterall, I don't like automobiles, and certainly don't think every person should own one. Would that be fair? It's expensive to treat all of those victims, and every car accident would be 100% avoidable if people just didn't drive. Maybe the middle road - maybe just the people who don't wear their seatbelts shouldn't be given any medical treatment, left either to die on the side of the road or to live with permanent injuries.

Is that a reasonable position? I imagine you'll agree it isn't.

Neither is yours.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I don't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't know. If the mother is a smoker for example, I don't know what should be done. Doesn't mean we should stop looking for another solution.

Ok, so then should abortion be the very last solution.  And, let's take your example and go even further with it.  I wasn't referring to just smoking tobacco.  How about the person who is going to drink alcohol, smoke weed or crack, shoot-up whichever chemical(s) they tend to use, have unprotected sex, or just generally not take care of themselves while pregnant.  Do you think they should be discouraged from having an abortion, knowing that whatever behavior they are engaged in is not going to change?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
And for that matter, if the fetus is "just a lump of cells", than what's wrong with a mother smoking while pregnant? I mean, it's not like she's harming a human right? It could just potientially have effects on the child right?

Because part of being responsible is anticipating consequences.  If a woman is sure she is going to have an abortion, I don't care what she does to that clump of cells.  If she is planning on allowing it to become a child then she is creating a situation wherein the probability of negative consequences is very high for the life that is being created.  Intentionally setting someone else up to fail in the future is mean and not a good deal.  If a woman is actually creating a child then that creation process needs to be looked at with a bit of care. 

A fetus can turn into a child.  It does not always do so, which is why a fetus is seen in a different light than an actual child.  I  think this topic has already been addressed on this thread, has it not?

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:it shows

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
it shows it can be done.
No, it shows some people can do it.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I have no idea what other people's sex drive entail, but I would think that it's not completley uncontrolable
So, you base your conclusion on your ignorance?

 


 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Well, Captain a lot could come out of it.  So what?  Why should woman be committed to bearing a child to birth at all, ever, in any circumstance just because she got pregnant?  What exactly is your rationale here?

If you break your leg doing snowboard jumps, should you have to wear a cast and feel pain in the leg just because you decided to do snowboard jumps? You see, by engaging in the activity [in this case taking jumps while snowboarding], you know something could happen that you didn't want to happen [such as breaking your leg].

No, your analogy does not represent your argument. This is more accurate:

"If you break your leg doing snowboard jumps, you should not be allowed to get a cast and analgesics to care for the break, because you knew the risk of a broken bone came along with doing jumps on a snowboard."

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm still waiting for an

 I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

I'll reproduce it here so you don't have to hunt through the thread for it;

Sinphanius wrote:
"Once again if she walks around outside, she knows she might get sick. With rights come responsibilites."
(slightly edited)

We try as hard as we can to eliminate the possible negative side effects of walking around outside, why shouldn't we do the same thing for having Sex?


 

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh come on, there's got to

Oh come on, there's got to be other pro-lifers on the boards.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Why did you put pro-choice in quotes?

 

Because people put pro-life in quotes.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You're committed to special pleading, in otherwords.

 

U.S/Canada have the resources to provide the care, African countries don't.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

How is it different in terms of what it means for the fetus? Afterall, from your perspective, the fetus is just an innocent bystander, isn't it?

 

It's not that different for the fetus, but like I said, in extreme circumstances, the rights of the mother over rule the rights of the fetus.

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

So, you base your conclusion on your ignorance?

 

Oh just a sec, I'll just jump into the mind of everyone on the planet.

 

Actually different cultures have different views about sex. This shows something....

 

 

 


As for snowboarding, no I'm not saying don't treat the broken leg, I'm saying don't be surprised if you get a broken leg by snowboarding if you take a bunch of jumps.

 

With rights come responsibilities. If I don't want to get injured snowboarding, I wouldn't take dangerous jumps, or go on hills beyond my skill level, I would use protection such as a helmet, knee pads etc....

 

Just like if I wanted to have sex and don't want a kid I would take the apprioate precautions, such as birth control, condoms etc...

 

 

Sinphanius wrote:

 

"Once again if she walks around outside, she knows she might get sick. With rights come responsibilites."
(slightly edited)

We try as hard as we can to eliminate the possible negative side effects of walking around outside, why shouldn't we do the same thing for having Sex?

 

 

Oh come on, sometimes getting sick is unaviodable. You HAVE to go outside, you don't have to have unprotected sex.

 

oh BTW, can you answer mine?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

And for that matter, if the fetus is "just a lump of cells", than what's wrong with a mother smoking while pregnant? I mean, it's not like she's harming a human right? It could just potientially have effects on the child right?

 

For the sake of argument you can replace 'smoking' with 'drinking alcohol'  of doing meth etc.....

 

 

 

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Oh just

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Oh just a sec, I'll just jump into the mind of everyone on the planet.
Instead of being absurd, maybe you could have a look at the evolutionary psychology of the subject.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Actually different cultures have different views about sex. This shows something....
Yes... It shows that different cultures have different views on sex.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
As for snowboarding, no I'm not saying don't treat the broken leg, I'm saying don't be surprised if you get a broken leg by snowboarding if you take a bunch of jumps.

With rights come responsibilities. If I don't want to get injured snowboarding, I wouldn't take dangerous jumps, or go on hills beyond my skill level, I would use protection such as a helmet, knee pads etc....

Just like if I wanted to have sex and don't want a kid I would take the apprioate precautions, such as birth control, condoms etc...

You can wear protection while snowboarding and still break a leg. You can wear protection while having sex and still get pregnant.

The difference is you'd allow someone who broke a leg snowboarding to get medical attention (cast and analgesics) when their protection fails, where you'd not allow a woman the same medical fall-back.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift

JillSwift wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Oh just a sec, I'll just jump into the mind of everyone on the planet.
Instead of being absurd, maybe you could have a look at the evolutionary psychology of the subject.

 

So if a rapists says he couldn't resist the urge as a defense, what would you propose should happen to him?

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

Yes... It shows that different cultures have different views on sex.

 

 

It shows that society also plays a role. I'm not saying it's entirly based on soceity, as I know there is biology behind it.

 

 

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

The difference is you'd allow someone who broke a leg snowboarding to get medical attention (cast and analgesics) when their protection fails, where you'd not allow a woman the same medical fall-back.

 

Wearing a cast won't end a potiental life.

 

 

 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Wearing

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Wearing a cast won't end a potiental life.

Potential, not actual.  There is a big difference.  I'm sorry, but life for the sake of life is just not as special a concept as the anti-woman's sexuality crowd makes it out to be.  This argument carries no weight when we put our extra children in group and foster homes, while communities show a lack of caring about children by how they allocate resources, and while plenty of children are neglected or outright abused and the community does nothing until shamed into action.  So what if a potential life is ended?  I would think the ending of actual lives would be of far more concern.

I doubt you will find many anti-woman supporters on this board.  From what I've read, most people here seem to understand that any person - yes, even women - have a right to use their bodies as they see fit sexually.  Since there is no voodooy concept of the soul entering the womb at conception to be paid homage to here, you're not going to get any support on that aspect of the issue either.  It really doesn't matter though.  If you have good, solid arguments for declaring that women should allow pregnancies to go full-term except in extreme cases then you will garner support.  You have yet to present such arguments and that is why you are alone in arguing your position here. 

 

Why is a potential life more important than the actual life of the adult required to create it?

Why should women give up sovereignty over their bodies and their sexuality?

Why should we encourage more babies be born when already looking at human overpopulation?

Why should we encourage more children to be raised in environments that range from unhealthy to downright torturous?

Did I miss any key questions that anyone else wants to hear a good, logical response to?  Please add to this if so.  Or, if you think she has answered any of these, please do mention it.  I will admit that my criteria for acceptable answers can be a bit restrictive sometimes.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.