BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 09:58 AM

I am Raptor NOT Rapaire.

2 different people!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 07:35 AM

...and NicoleC,

I have NEVER met a pro-lifer that holds the beliefs you describe.

Never.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 07:32 AM

"See, the whole point of the pro-life movement is that we don't see it that way. We see TWO lives in a pregnancy. (John Hardly)"

"Funny how the pro-life movement never holds the man accountable or even is an issue. They want the man to be able to decide -- but not to be held responsible for the choice. All authority, no responsibility."

NicoleC,

The quote of mine that you pulled was addressed directly at the comparison between abortion and amputation raised by Clint. It was not about responsibility.

Of course I understand that a man is in the pregnancy equation. And at least every pro-life person I know holds the man equally morally responsible for the pregnancy as well as anything related to it (the abortion) ...if he had a say in it.

I thought it was women who did not want men in the equation where abortion is concerned. Now I really am confused.

Clint,

I have no problem with your entire last post, though I disagree with your conclusion about capital punishment. I understand you. I think your view is consistant. I have other reasons for believing in capital punishment.

But what I was asking you is if you believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. At any point in the term?

That's why I said what I did in the above quote that NicoleC abused. Since you compared the "badness" of abortion to the "badness" of amputation, I was commenting that, to me, a major difference between abortion and amputation is that abortion IS the removal of another life -- not the removal of a leg.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:47 AM

"Because the so-called pro-life movement is not about human life, it's about potential male life."

And not just as much about the potential female babies? I just don't think that is true.

Myself I'd be more than happy if we could balance up the scales of history a litle bit and have women run the world at a political level for a few hundred years. It'd very likely be run better, and it couldn't be run worse. And I suspect that the number of abortions would be a lot lower. But I don't suppose that is on.

(A suggestion - it gets confusing when people run a quote from another post and then respond to it, without indicating, by quote marks or italics or whatever, which are the quotes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:41 AM

Ok, John H. Here's a basic belief of mine. I'll do my best to define my terms.

The belief: It is a bad thing to kill a human. As Raymond Chandler (I think) said, it is 'the ultimate cruelty,' because you are taking something that can never be returned, even in part.

But it is permissible (though never good) when it is the lesser of two evils. Almost always that means killing if it is necessary to stop a person who is attempting to kill or severely injure another person. ("Severe injury" is mutilation, broken bones, permanent injuries.) My reasoning is if a bad guy is attempting to kill an innocent child of mine, and I must shoot him fatally to stop him, I am responsible for the death of a human, although a bad guy, and that's not good. But if I do not shoot him I will be responsible for the death of my child, and that's worse.

It is generally not permissible to kill someone because you believe he is going to attack you or yours some day nor to kill someone because you believe he has killed someone else. The reason is that you may be wrong, and if you kill an innocent man you can never undo it, and you are a murderer, not a savior.

This is why, in the US, the laws allow self-defense and forbid pre-emptive or punitive shootin' and cuttin'.

And that is why I believe the courts should not be allowed pre-emptive or punitive homicide either. They may be wrong, and they sometimes are, and then they not only kill the innocent, they let the guilty go free.

I realize this is not nit-pick proof. There is no single legal definition of self-defense from state to state, for instance. But writing is laborious for me and it's as clear as I can make it at present. Tell me what you don't agree with.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 02:34 AM

Brava, Nicole! Well-said!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:30 AM

Harpgirl - I don't think the ability to choose or not choose an abortion is anything like "freedom." Most women would vastly prefer not to ever have to make the choice. If abortion weren't an alternative because there were no need at all for it, I think the world would be a better place.

Rapaire - "I Think I'm gonna regret this but I need to know what you mean by "full equality with men". And don't women already have the only right to chose to have an abortion!"

Not by a long shot. Until women can soley decide whether or not to get pregnant with their accepted partner, then we can discuss whether a woman is the only one making a choice. Just because in some places a woman has the opportunity to make a final choice about the aftermath doesn't mean she was the only one involved in getting there. For example:

See, the whole point of the pro-life movement is that we don't see it that way. We see TWO lives in a pregnancy. (John Hardly)

Funny how the pro-life movement never holds the man accountable or even is an issue. They want the man to be able to decide -- but not to be held responsible for the choice. All authority, no responsibility.

Because the so-called pro-life movement is not about human life, it's about potential male life. They don't care they carrying a pregnancy to term is more dangerous and life threatening than an abortion. Who cares if the woman dies? They don't care that lack of available medical care may kill the fetus anyway, and maybe the mother with it. They don't care what happens to the baby after it is born, as long as it gets born. They don't care if a woman has access to safe and effective birth control, in fact, many will protest any kind of birth control as immoral. They don't care that many women don't have access to the reproductive health services they need to be as safe as they can be about having a baby or not having one. They don't care that dozens of zygotes are killed during in vitro fertiliation -- for some reason that's not a crime because you probably eventually get a BABY out the process. God forbid you then use those doomed zygotes for stem cells though!

The worst of them advocate the death penalty for women who get an abortion and the doctors who provide them, but the men who impregnated them get off scot free.

And then there are some of us who have faced the "pro life" movement's real beliefs first hand and have been seriously injured for it. I wasn't getting an abortion, but that didn't stop them from attacking me for entering a women's hospital that provided reproductive health services of all kinds.

I may believe there are some serious and principled people against abortion out there, but you won't find them defining themselves according to a "movement" whose actions are as immoral as the ones they claim to protest for immorality. The exception is the Catholic Church, whom I may disagree with on many matters, but they at least are consistent when it comes to what they consider killing.

Nah. Women aren't the only ones who make a choice. They're just the only ones who HAVE to pay the piper. That's not equal rights by a long shot.

Until every woman can make a choice about becoming pregnant or not without fear of physical, economic or religious reprisals, abortion is the cruel escape hatch that a lucky few have access to. Those who would seek to close that door without addressing the issues that cause it to be there have no moral ground to stand on. They simply seek to impose their definition of morality with providing an alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 11:35 PM

Kevin, you said...

I've never had anyone I loved murdered, so how am I any more qualified to talk about capital punishment, by your logic, harpgirl? There are plenty of people who would put it that way, too.

I don't think you are more qualified to talk about capital punishment, Kevin. Just unqualified to speak about what most women want. However, since men are mostly responsible for the laws we have about capital punishment as well as more numerous on death row, one might argue that you have a greater stake in that issue.

I should like to see you and your brothers insist that all laws about capital punishment be rewritten by an equal number of men and women! Hell, I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten by an equal number of men and women. Then maybe it would reflect women's concerns as well!

I don't think killing human beings is a good thing to do, that's all. However guilty, however small.

I know you are against abortion, Kevin. We differ on that.

And you really believe that the only women who have abortions arre the ones who would freely choose this if they could see an alternative... Well, maybe there are some places and times where that is true, in which case they are a lot more fortunate places and times than any I have ever lived in.

Kevin, most women who would chose abortion do not have the option. To have or not to have an abortion is my idea of a "free choice."
The vast majority of women on this planet have no choice but to carry their pregnancies to term. Abortion is just not an option.

Even women who get to choose abortion as an alternative to unwanted pregnancy are often doing it at the behest of men. Or as Fionn suggests, they are choosing it because to have a child out of wedlock would bring the patriarchal wrath of their church elders down on them. Controlled by men either way! Not much choice there I'd say!

Women have found ways to terminate unwanted pregnancies for many thousands of years. I believe the first reasons had to do with the challenges of seasonal migration and the food supply. And we will continue to make choices about having or not having babies no matter how much men try to control us!

And by the way guys, I'm not even the slighest bit angry about this discussion! I think it's important that you all hear from women with strong and differing points of view. Maybe that way those of you who don't care what women think or who don't listen to women will begin to take some notice! And stop telling us what to do with our bodies!
Love harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 11:30 PM

"don't try to hide behind some cloak of respectability here"

Well, I am a bit o' a Hairy Potter, but I don't need a cloak. I have a 3 year history here. By now folks like my writing style or don't. I'm not hidden -- you can click on my name and call up every post in my history (except the first half year I spent as guest). I'm actually pretty respectable. No, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:17 PM

Joihn Hardly says things like this:

"Seems even if we were to use your definition of "viability" we would still be snuffin' the inconvenient li'l shits anyway."

and then a few posts later claims to be trying to debate this in a thoughtful manner? I think not.

THAT sort of statement (above) is offensive and obviously designed    to inflame. Don't tell me for a second it isn't. At   least admit to what you are trying   to do, don't try to hide behind some cloak of respectability here.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Willie-O
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 05:30 PM

Troll yer full of hyberbole there. We hear plenty about victims. Since we have a provincial election going on, our rightwing premier just had a public meeting with "police and victims of crime".

Victim stories are great copy. Especially if they are middle or (most rarely) upper-class victims. If they're the usual hookers and Indians you won't hear much about them. I don't think that's because they don't have good stories, it's because they are a little more complicated than yer conservative mindset cares to get involved in.

That's right, capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment, because an extensive appeals process involves a lot of high-priced lawyers. (Or at least it should, the notion that this means the appeals process should be "streamlined" leads directly to killing more innocent people).

One thing more. Some people who have committed terrible crimes can and do change over time, and some can't. This "life without parole, period" line isn't very observant of real life circumstances. Isn't it enough to take away someone's productive adult life, if they can gradually come to an understanding that we were put here to help each other? Elsewise, how likely are any of them to come to that understanding?      

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 05:26 PM

"One deeper assumption which I think all of us would agree about is that killing fellow human beings is a bad thing to do - and then we'd divide about what kind of circumstances might justify doing something like that; and also probably about what we mean by "human being"."

Very astute observation. And I think that one reason we have trouble discussing (and understanding each other) is that so many of the arguements that either side uses are either...

1. based on assumptions we make FOR the other side about what THEY must believe. I do think it is fair to point out inconsistencies -- but if you are going to do so, I think it is incumbent upon you to LISTEN to their response -- they may actually have an answer for what YOU think is an inconsistency.

2. the above but they have become unassailible cliches.

3. defenses for what we WANT to believe rather than reasons for why we believe what we believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 04:37 PM

And that's why it's best to avoid using words and turns of phrase that are liable to switch off the other parties listening chip - or which seem to be an attempt to beg the question.

One deeper assumption which I think all of us would agree about is thta killing fellow human beings is a bad thing to do - and then we'd divide about what kind of circumstances might justify doing somnething like that; and also probably about what we mean by "human being".

And there'd be other deeper assumptions about freedom, and disagreements about the limits on freedom. And about the role of law in society. And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 04:26 PM

"It's hard to explain things that seem perfectly obvious to you."

Perhaps that's why fights do break out, even here. Frustration because you can't communicate that which seems obvious to you can lead to aggression. And it's not necessarily the fault of the communicator OR the hearer, since the problem can lie in what each perceive as the meaning of the words used in the attempt to communicate.

There also has to be a willingness on the part of both the speaker and the listener to communicate in a meaningful way.

It's sad the ideologies and fixed ways of thinking seem to be breaking down communications between people more and more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:46 PM

McGrath:

"I'd have thought that identifying where the different assumotions diverge, and exploring whether there are deeper assumptions which are held in common would be the very reason for continuing the discussion."

Thought I was doing that for a while, but I don't know where to go next. Maybe when I rest up.

It's hard to explain things that seem perfectly obvious to you.

clint.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:52 AM

McGrath,

I think that's what we were trying to do -- at least that's precisely what I was attempting.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 08:49 AM

"We're working from different assumptions on some level that's deeper than abortion and murder. Seems useless to continue.

I'd have thought that identifying where the different assumotions diverge, and exploring whether there are deeper assumptions which are held in common would be the very reason for continuing the discussion.

In face-to-face discussions these kind of things tend to get crowded out as anger takes over. That happens here often enough, but it needn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 08:47 AM

Harpgirl

I Think I'm gonna regret this but I need to know what you mean by "full equality with men".

And don't women already have the only right to chose to have an abortion!

Both these questions are asked with the utmost respect and no sarcastic or disrespectfull tones are intended!!!!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM

"I'm sorry but Clint and I seem in need of that fancy internet free downloadable English to English translation software"

Very good & exactly right. I too thought I was being perfectly clear & logical, but like I said, we're talking past each other. We're working from different assumptions on some level that's deeper that abortion and murder. Seems useless to continue.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:00 PM

Fionn you began this thread thusly:

Does anyone besides me find the circus that surrounds US executions a bit distasteful? Is it necessary for instance to parade the condemned at press conferences? I would have thought that, in terms of pandering to the ghoulish in our natures, this was about one step better than full-blown public executions a la Saudi Arabia etc.

Not only is it distasteful, but IMO it is pandering to the fanatical Christian right. Generally however, I think it most reflects the global journalist communities' attempts to publicize news that panders to the lowest common demoninator of intelligence worldwide.


I realise that an audience of sorts is accommodated at US executions. A Death Row lawyer on UK tv the other night recalled a recent "performance" at which the official pronouncement of death was greeted with laughter from the victim's relatives. One wonders how long such relatives manage to trip out on such an experience. As the lawyer said, they probably wake up next morning and find that the world hasn't changed much after all.

Paul Hill seems to pose the US a real quandary, being a fundamentalist Christian of some sort, convinced that the state of Florida is speeding his passage to heaven. This is exactly the mentality that fills so many in the west with dread, particularly in the states, when it comes packaged with Islamic fundamentalism. When will America wake up to the reality that this kind of madness is a pestilence whatever religion it comes with?

Good question! I think we will better answer this question when women and men have full equality all over the world. Fundamentalism in all religions is based on male partriarchy, a particularly virilent and destructive form of human societal organization that has distorted religion all over the planet and led to countless deaths, human subjugation, inequality, and most all of the rest of the world's woes.   


In the meantime, executing people like Paul Hill seems like a shabby cop-out to me. He might have lived to regret his hideous crime and shake off the nonsense he's been brainwashed into believing. And even if his death means momentary gratification for relatives, the law should not be steered by the gut feelings of people who are emotionally vulnerable.

I don't think it is a shabby cop out. He lived in Florida. Most high profile murderers get executed in this state. It's the one thing Jeb Bush has done this year that I didn't disapprove of. Has he been brainwashed? No more than millions of other fundamentalist males in the world. Yes, he might have lived to change his mind about the meaning of what he did. Probably not though. He was a psychopath and therefore not likely to change his mind about his crimes. I don't see how the law was steered by gut feelings of people who are emotionally vulnerable. Mostly it was men who made the decision to execute him.


If what he did is sanctioned by the codes of his church, then I would have thought that his church should be put on trial. And that should hold regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong (on which matter I'm afraid I continue to vacillate).

I doubt that what he did was sanctiond by the codes of his church. I don't vacillate on abortion. Nor will I change my opinion until women have complete worldwide equality. But, Fionn, your posts are always thoughtful and articulate. As are Kevin's.    Love harpgirl.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:43 PM

Fionn,
I'm sorry but Clint and I seem in need of that fancy internet free downloadable English to English translation software. From my perspective I am actually laughing out loud because it seems we aren't even talking to each other.

Perhaps you can translate what you think are his salient points that you think I'm not answering -- because I feel like he is totally missing my points ---- AND I'M QUITE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE FAULT AT COMMUNICATION. *grin* I'm not trying to dodge anything -- I thought I was answering Clint. apparently not.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM

I've never had anyone I loved murdered. Kevin McG, I never did have you down as the type who would go round having people murdered, whether you loved them or not.

In the abortion debate, as always, I'm on Peg's side, except that I don't think John Hardly was really mounting a personal assault. I'm finding his posts quite thought-provoking, and well within the bounds of civil argument, even if it's an argument he's losing so far. (No convincing response to Clint's points.)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:25 PM

Raptor,
    Yes I believe that only women should make decisions about abortion. Men are entitled to an opinion. However, I do not think they are entitled to be involved in the decision to abort unless the woman in question allows it. I will not be changing this opinion until women have full equality with men in every aspect of living all over the planet.
      


As for Kevin, since he is probably asleep by now and I need to eat my dinner. I'll answer him later. Love, Harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:02 PM

Well, we're talking past one another. I don't understand your distinctions and you don' t understand mine.

I haven't got the heart to go through point by point, but try just a couple.
It is immoral to drive at high speeds through crowded streets or to fire a random shot into a crowd because it can kill someone. Neither will be sure to kill some one, but the word "can" does not make either a moral act, or beyond good and evil. Either act would be immoral because either is a wrong thing to do even if no one happens to be injured. Either is a thing you should not do.

And amputation is a bad thing because it leaves one crippled, but it's better than dying from gangrene, which is a worse thing. But "better than gangrene" does not mean the same as "good.'

Morality is not a chemically pure abstraction; morality has to do with one's actions in a messy imperfect world. What one should do in a world of infallible courts, or a world where speeding alway kills or never kills, has no necessary relation to what one should do in this world.

And before someone splits another hair, for purposes of this message "ethical" can be substituted for"moral."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 06:19 PM

Clint,

I'm sorry, I'm obvioulsy not a very good communicator. I'll try to take a wack at our obvious impasse. I don't mind discussing it but I do know these long threads can be horribly tedious to open and read, so if I bore you early on I understand.

If you understand the distinction between innocent and guilty (and I think I pointed out that you do), comparison of abortion to capital punishment is merely a red herring."

Indeed I do understand. I said, plain as I could, "capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible."

The point I was trying to make way back when was that there is a significant difference between "IS innocent" and "COULD BE innocent" (or, as you said "sometimes" the taking of innocent life. {by virtue of poorly served justice}). To my thinking, relative to the comparison between abortion and CP -- it is only significant that the unborn is innocent and the killer is guilty. relative to arguing the merits of CP THEN your issue of "could be" is significant.

"So you are saying that an abotion is an amputation?"

No. They are similar in that they are bad things. Amputation and abortion and killing a child's dog are all bad things, but sometimes a bad thing is the best you can do, because the alternatives are worse things.

That's why when I "made this point" I ended it with a question. So you don't think abortion is bad on moral grounds? So, on what grounds do you find it "bad"?

" 'If pro-life advocates they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages.''
"Lots do and lots do. But even if they did not adopt a single unwanted, undesirable child, it might make them less honorable -- but not philosophically wrong. And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages"

Didn't say "philosophically wrong." Said they're not putting their actions where their mouth is; not practicing what they preach; not living up to their philosophy.All hat & no cattle. I had never heard of a funeral for a miscarriage until your post. Stillbirths, yes.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned that I have attended such funerals because the point I have been making all along is that this is a philosophical/moral issue but it is significantly clouded by emotional arguements that are actually red herrings. We may FEEL a certain way about something but it has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of it. If we were slave owners we might FEEL as though we were kind to those we own -- but it's immaterial to the rightness or wrongness of slavery.

And, again, you may feel as though a pro-lifer who doesn't adopt is a hypocrite -- but it doesn't answer the greater moral question. It's a bitch when nasty people are right -- but it happens some times.

You seem to make a strong distinction between "stillbirth" and "miscarriage". Relative to the pro-life/pro-choice debate however, this is inconsequential because what acts or serves as the law of the land makes no distinction relative to length of term. Any fetus can be aborted. There is no wing of the pro-choice movement lobbying congress to enact laws limiting abortion to early term. There IS a wing of the pro-choice movement seriously lobbying to protect late-term (partial birth) abortion.

"The speed limit thing -- I can understand the connection but logically you would have to accept the premise that lower speed limits save lives. I've seen stats that counter that notion."

Stats or no, it takes longer to stop at high speeds, and that can cost lives. That's why nobody sane wants a 60 mph speed limit inside city limits.

But my point was, if you're sincerely pro-life I expect you to be against anything that is anti-life, that can cost lives. Burning stubble fields in this area, for instance.

There is one word in your reply here that moves this away from a moral (or certainly a moral equivlency) issue. The word is "can" - as in "...can cost lives."

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Everyman/USA
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 04:49 PM

But...but...that would mean being totally consistent...and who is?

Leave us quietly alone to our little hypocrisies, blind spots, and self-indulgences, I say! It's we little people who can't even live up to our own impassioned rhetoric who keep daytime TV and WalMart viable in these perilous times, to say nothing of the Democratic and Republican parties. Without us you wouldn't have had beanie babies either. We weep buckets over the death of one kitten (reported on the 6 O'Clock News) while daily devouring meat from slaughterhouses that torture and kill millions of animals yearly. We don't think about things that are disturbing, unless we're told to. Remember that. Allow us our little hatreds, I say! They are part of what makes us free, and causes others to envy our way of life.

I eat steak 5 times a week, and have never experienced a moment of guilt, but I hope they fry the guy that killed that kitten.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:59 PM

John Hardly:

"If you understand the distinction between innocent and guilty (and I think I pointed out that you do), comparison of abortion to capital punishment is merely a red herring."

Indeed I do understand. I said, plain as I could, "capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible."

"So you are saying that an abotion is an amputation?"

No. They are similar in that they are bad things. Amputation and abortion and killing a child's dog are all bad things, but sometimes a bad thing is the best you can do, because the alternatives are worse things.

" 'If pro-life advocates they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages.''
"Lots do and lots do. But even if they did not adopt a single unwanted, undesirable child, it might make them less honrable -- but not philosophically wrong. And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages"

Didn't say "philosophically wrong." Said they're not putting their actions where their mouth is; not practicing what they preach; not living up to their philosophy.All hat & no cattle. I had never heard of a funeral for a miscarriage until your post. Stillbirths, yes.

"The speed limit thing -- I can understand the connection but logically you would have to accept the premise that lower speed limits save lives. I've seen stats that counter that notion."

Stats or no, it takes longer to stop at high speeds, and that can cost lives. That's why nobody sane wants a 60 mph speed limit inside city limits.

But my point was, if you're sincerely pro-life I expect you to be against anything that is anti-life, that can cost lives. Burning stubble fields in this area, for instance.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:58 PM

I've never had anyone I loved murdered, so how am I any more qualified to talk about capital punishment, by your logic, harpgirl? There are plenty of people who would put it that way, too.

I don't think killing human beings is a good thing to do, that's all. However guilty, however small.

And you really believe that the only women who have abortions arre the ones who would freely choose this if they could see an alternative... Well, maybe there are some places and times where that is true, in which case they are a lot more fortunate places and times than any I have ever lived in.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:46 PM

Harpgirl are you saying that only the woman have the right to decide on abortion? And men don't have a right to have thier opinion at all?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 02:56 PM

As for Paul Hill, his mother should have aborted him! I bet she didn't have a choice! Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 02:51 PM

Kevin, you just said...

"If women who don't want abortions feel that because of poverty and lack of support and all that they don't in fact have a choice to carry on and give birth, you don't think that matters? I find it hard to believe that."

Who are these women who don't want abortions and are forced to have them? Women who have abortions want them! But most women do not have access to abortion and therefore have no real choice! Choice means to "have or not to have," an abortion.

Once again, most women on the planet live in abject poverty and also do not have a choice about giving birth. They are impregnated and give birth because they have no choice.

I went back and read most of this thread and you men have mostly ignored the issue= "ABORTION" and talked mainly about capital punishment. Stick with that issue, Kevin. You are not qualified to
speak about what most women want. But you have done a passable job of obfuscating your opinion to get yourself off the hook on the issue of FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ALL THE WORLD'S WOMEN!

Since you have changed the point of your argument, I can say that yes it does matter that the American women who have access to abortion as an alternative to raising unwanted children are lucky they have three hundred dollars and a ride to the clinic. Most women don't have this choice.   

Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 02:32 PM

You disagree with that, harpgirl? If women who don't want abortions feel that because of poverty and lack of support and all that they don't in fact have a choice to carry on and give birth, you don't think that matters? I find it hard to believe that.

There are some things where we'd always disagree, I imagine, but I can't see how that could be one of them.

(Perhaps it's because I wrote "the piority" instead of "a priority" - to make it clearer, what I meant that for people who are opposed to abortion it ought to be "the priority"; for other people perhaps "a priority" is more appropriate. But I think its "a priority" which ought to be held in common.)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 02:12 PM

Kevin, you said...

"If the only women having abortions were those who are doing so as a genuinely free choice, the number would be far fewer."

Kevin that sounds to me like you are saying women would have far fewer abortions if they had a genuinely free choice. What did you mean if not that?

"Working to help give all women who are pregnant a real choice not to have an abortion should be the priority, and one on which everyone should be able to agree."

I disagree with this statement as well. Working to give all women a real choice "to have an abortion or not to have an abortion", is the real choice. Abortion is not really a choice for most of the pregnant women of the world. (And many of us know that herbal remedies don't always work!)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 01:31 PM

Still birth funerals, I can see. A funeral for a miscarriage I don't grasp. And I come from at least as conservative and pro-life a background as John Hardly.

OK. My remark was gratuitous and uncalled for. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 01:04 PM

"And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages". Somehow I doubt that statement, John Hardly

Why in God's name would you doubt it? Have I lied to you before? Do you want the names and dates? How could I prove it to you? This is just wierd.

By the way, way to go harpgirl. I know you rather not have me "on your side" but I can admire a consistant position.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:45 PM

That last post of mine belonged in another thread! I wondered where it had gone to...

(I can't see anything in the least improbable about that claim by Ebbie - funerals for still births are not that unusual.)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:42 PM

"And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages". Somehow I doubt that statement, John Hardly.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:56 AM

The other way of "distilling" is to freeze out the water. Mind it's got to be pretty cold for that. Perhaps the craft died out with the end of the ice age.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:50 AM

That wasn't what I said actually. I was just saying that a lot of women are forced into having abortions which they would sooner avoid. And I don't think many people would disagree with that.

And I wouldn't have much time for anyone who doesn't think that is a bad thing, and I doubt if you would, harpgirl.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:38 AM

Well Kevin, I disagree with your notion that there would be far fewer abortions if women could get them easily by choice.

There would be many, many more abortions all over the world! We might even be able to control overpopulation and the planet would not be doomed to extinction!

I don't understand how you can presume to speak for the intentions of women all over the planet! Let the women have the real say about this subject! Men even try to dominate the discussions about it here at Mudcat! Shame on all you men!    Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:11 AM

Abortion doesn't happen because its legal, it's legal because it happens. Those opponents of abortion who concentrate on trying to change the law to make it illegal are starting at the wrong end. If the only women having abortions were those who are doing so as a genuinely free choice, the number would be far fewer. Working to help give all women who are pregnant a real choice not to have an abortion should be the priority, and one on which everyone should be able to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:10 AM

Getting involved in picketing isn't necessarily the same thing at all - it could well be that a higher proportion of women opposed to abortion might recognise that as a futile and counter-productive exercise, and prefer to get involved in other ways, especially those where men wouldn't have a direct role to play in one-to-one support work.

I suppose it is just about possible to argue that being opposed to abortion is consistent with being in favour of state killing of people convicted of capital crimes. But I don't think it's consistent with using the label "pro-life". Indeed people who are against the death penalty, but in favour of abortion could use the label just as appropriately, and it'd be just as much of a distortion of language.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:10 AM

(Maybe it's my computer, or my server, or the Mudcat, but right now I'm having to split my posts up in order to put them on the cat. This isn't all that long, but it'll have to be done in three or so bites.)I think it's very unlikely indeed that the proportion of women opposed in principle to abortion is lower than the proportion of men. It just doesn't square with my experience. The only polls I've ever seen do seem to indicate that this was the case, with well-off young men being the section most likely to be pro-abortion. Maybe it varies in different parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:34 AM

Rapaire; I think John Hardly got pretty personal. He referred to my statement that more pro-lifers are men than women (particularly the ones who try to kill doctors who provide abortions) as a "tired old rube" with NO factual information to back it up except for his 'personally' knowing some pro-lifers who are women. Maybe next time he is picketing a clinic he should do a head-count and see which gender is better-represented. Herein Boston, most of them are men (remember   John Salvi?) and most of the names represented on the hate-filled websites are men's. Certainly more of the politicians who are anti-choice are men. Harpgirl makes a good point about gender inequity.


Then he claims to be using "logic"? I don't think calling someone ignorant is name-calling; it's pretty obviously true in this case.
He calls on me to "point out his flaws" and I have already done so, but he then ignores what I have said. I am done with this silly argument.   My experience has been that pro-lifers in general are so fanatical that they can't see reason, nor respond   to anything without distorting it to fit their own tiny little mindset, and I have better things to do than argue with a fanatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:09 AM

Paul Hill got lots of publicity here in Flori-DUH, especially just before he was executed. I thought he was a frightening psychopath and undeserving of any publicity just before he was executed.

As for pregnancy termination, I'm in favor of free abortion on demand ALL OVER THE PLANET!

Until all women have equal rights with men, (which includes a say over what medical choices they make regarding their bodies), we will continue to have mass abandonment of female children in China, female genital mutilition in Africa, forcible rape by HIV positive men all over Africa, untold domestic violence in the United States, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists raised in all male schools wreaking havoc all over the globe, immolation of women in India, and millions of women unable to drive, walk freely outdoors, vote, inherit, own property, divorce freely and all of the other freedoms that men all over the world take for granted.

Make women equal, men of the world; then let us all decide together how we will treat human life!       Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:56 AM

Peg I agreed with everything you said But you lost me when it got personal!

The fact is that pro-lifers Don't get the fact that the are taking thier own beliefs (that they think a 3 week old fetus is a viable lifeform and not just a lump of sperm and egg)And deciding that law should make everyone conform to thier way womans choise be damned!

Try to keep your emotions out of it with the namecalling!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:39 AM

"John Hardly keeps insisting he is using LOGIC. Yet he sounds   like a fanatic to me."

Well then , peg, discuss the issue. Point out my flaws. I'm game -- hell, there's lots smarter people than me here on the 'cat.

Rapaire,

Yup. Just another reason why Bush is not a favorite with conservatives -- never has been, and that disfavor is growing (and that growning disfavor is one of many reasons I think Bush will probably lose in 2004)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:24 AM

"Safe, legal, and rare" has also been said by G. W. Bush -- on "Larry King Live," Dec 16, 1999. His OWN position on abortion seems to be one of waffling and indecisiveness. I first remember this phrase being used by one of the people Clinton attempted to have ratified as Surgeon General.

The President's mother is on record (1994) as not being against abortion. His father is on record as saying that it should be a woman's choice.

Here is an interesting study/article on abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:05 AM

John Hardly keeps insisting he is using LOGIC. Yet he sounds   like a fanatic to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:46 AM

"This doesn't change the point I am making. In fact, I even said "You may disagree with the usefulness of capital punishment, or even find it immoral -- but you really shouldn't have trouble understanding how one might make a distinction". You obviously understand my distinction. You are merely adding another issue that still doesn't alter the logic of my point -- that capital punishment can make a mistake."

I worded this wrong.

what I was trying to say is:

"This doesn't change the point I am making. In fact, I even said "You may disagree with the usefulness of capital punishment, or even find it immoral -- but you really shouldn't have trouble understanding how one might make a distinction". You obviously understand my distinction. You are merely adding another issue -- that capital punishment can make a mistake." That still doesn't alter the logic of my point.