BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harlowpoet
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:27 AM

Without supporting either the death penalty, abortion, or Paul Hills actions, I would say that he would not have commited what he did, if the doctor had not been aborting live babies. We are talking babies,who if born premature, the medical authorities would be going all out to save. Yet because they are unwanted, they are disposed of discreetly, as if they never occurred. What a wonderful society this is.

Sorry, but no-one comes out of this one smelling of roses

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 02:11 PM

Seems like excessive outrage and anger over a murderer simply because he expresses a view that snuffing the unborn is morally wrong. If he was any other murderer, most here would suggest we don empathy shoes and walk a mile so we might have a sense of the economic or social inequities that forced him into a life as a murderer. Instead, because he has the nerve to pass moral judgement on abortion, those who would otherwise dismiss captital punishment are suddenly contemplative -- and happy that at least this once they didn't have their way on that issue.

But what wasted anger -- after all, pragmatically speaking, his act was the equivalent of trying to stop the agricultural output of the USA by killing two farmers. The harvest of unborn is going to be statistically equal before and after Hill' foolish act. Hill's act won't diminish the snuffing one bit. Pro-choice wins both ways -- undimished snuffing and a villain to point to (and paint the pro-life side as).

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:10 PM

Without supporting either the death penalty, abortion, or Paul Hills actions, I would say that he would not have commited what he did, if the doctor had not been aborting live babies. harlowpoet, if Hill had not done this particular murder it does not in any way signify that he would not have committed a different murder or other heinous act in time. Anyone who is so sure of the correctness of his views is vulnerable to going over the top. That is what scares me most in all peopledom: Being absolutely sure. Questions are far more important, imo.

A good man's not always right
Nor the bad man always wrong
Things are not always black and white
As I'd thought my whole life long
Instead of haste I've learned patience
And deep gratitude for questions
The answers can wait, that at last, I have found

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:39 PM

A lot of people appear to be absolutely sure of the correctness of their views when it comes to abortion.

The pity about all this is that too often people opposed to abortion fail to recognise that the only real way to prevent babies getting aborted must involve getting rid of the things in society that push women into "choosing" that as a solution to their situation.

True, there are women for whom abortion it is a genuine free choice, but most of the time it's an imposed choice, because of poverty and all kinds of other pressures and distortions. And whether people are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" they should be united in seeing that as a disgrace.

I'd see Paul Hill's resort to murder as a reflection of the fact he was living in a country where reprisal killing of killers is a respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:35 PM

"..respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture" How so, McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harlowpoet
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:53 AM

Ebbie

I am absolutely sure that taking life is wrong. I get fed up with these so called ethical dilemmas, such as should we destroy this life or not. There are people maimed and murdered all over the world in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Vietnam, where world leaders struggled with their ethical dilemmas, and decided that bombing populations is OK.

There is no ethical or moral dilemma involved in murdering someone (and that includes babies). You don't do it.

There is a muslim proverb, that says if you take one life, you kill the whole of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:31 AM

Capital punishment, and its corrupting effect is what I'm referring, Ebbie. The idea that taking a life for a life is a good thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:52 AM

I'd see Paul Hill's resort to murder as a reflection of the fact he was living in a country where reprisal killing of killers is a respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture.

Yeah, THAT"S gotta be true. No way an American could be intelligent enough to be able to evaluate and discern a difference in intent or rationale.

Of course, snuffing unborn in no way informs our valuation of human life, though capital punishment does.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:25 AM

I definitely think that contributes to it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:32 AM

I definitely think that contributes to it as well.
So, then, our government's allowance of women to "choose" snuffing contributes to the occurance or commission of murder generally?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 12:22 PM

"There is a muslim proverb, that says if you take one life, you kill the whole of humanity."

I believe that's a Jewish proverb as well. Not surprising - both are the same religion at root after all. And so is Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:24 PM

McG, the irony will not have escaped you that one of the greatest pressures leading pregnant mothers to endure the trauma of termination has been the fear of vilification by arrogant clerics in the Catholic church. Not to mention the fear, until very recent times, of incarceration in catholic institutions, and the brutal treatment to which they were often subjected therein.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:34 PM

Ahem...abortion is legal. Murder is not.   There is   apparently   a great deal of misunderstanding of our terms here. Viability of a fetus is what draws   the line between   abortion and "snuffing."

Many years ago, this was not an issue of   morality. It   is now because it has also become an issue of control   of women's bodies,   not to mention religious fanatics   who   live in   terror of   other people having more   fun   (read: sex)   than they   are   having.

Funny   how   most people against abortion are also against homosexuality. Funny how most people in favor of reproductive rights are also against capital punishment. Well, not funny,   really; no one's laughing.

Anyone who has not had to face an unwanted pregnancy (their own or a partner's or   friend's or child's) should   just shut the hell up about abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:35 PM

True enough, and sorting out that kind of thing is very much the sort of change I'm talking about. There's been a lot of change in recent years in those kind of attitudes, long overdue and no doubt incomplete, but very welcome for all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:06 PM

1855 AD -- anyone who has never been a slave should just shut the hell up about slavery.

1935 AD -- anyone who has never been gassed should shut the hell up about genocide.

Babies aren't viable on their own. "Snuffing" works for me. You choose your euphamisms, I'll choose mine.

Fun with sex isn't the issue -- never has been. Responsibility with sex is the issue -- always has been. I absolutely defend a woman's right to choose not to have sex -- even to the point of capital punishment for rape (philosophically -- though practically it couldn't be done).

at least you didn't say "abortion should be safe, available and RARE"

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:20 PM

Peg:

"Funny   how   most people against abortion are also against homosexuality. Funny how most people in favor of reproductive rights are also against capital punishment. Well, not funny,   really; no one's laughing."

The laughing is at you. If you cannot argue one point on its merits you should stop arguing. Instead, you link the subject to other subjects. Tarred by association?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

Using words picked out to make it harder to communicate across barriers of disagreement does not help. Doing that is just a cop out, a way of confirming that the people we disagree with aren't reachable.

An instance of the kind of thing I touched on in this post I made in a recent thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 08:44 PM

Again, McGrath, please argue the point in question. What Peg did was say "people who believe______ also believe ______".
The second space is often reserved for something vile and unrelated. This is a dishonest and mean-spirited argument technique and nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:19 PM

My point is that people do not use the same definition for what could be said   to be the same   thing. Why is abortion   as "murder" acceptable, when   capital punishment is not?   And vice versa? I am in favor of reproductive rights (women should   choose if they want to carry a pregnancy to term) and NOT in favor of capital punishment.

NO ONE thinks abortion is a "good" thing; but it should remain a legal and accessible option.

John Hardly, you seem to be ignoring the fact   that vialbility of a   fetus refers to   whether a "baby" can live on its own outside the mother's womb. That's where the line is   drawn on whether the procedure is offered and at what stage. At eight weeks, that fetus is not viable. At thirteens weeks, it is not viable. At twenty weeks, well, maybe it is. See the difference?

I have not only noted that many who are "pro-life" are also in favor of capital punishment; but that the overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" are MEN. That includes the Mudcat. My, my, how interestng. Men's opinions on this do not carry the   same weight that women's do. If you don't like that, too freakin' bad. Men who actually respect women understand where I am   coming from on this; but then, they are also pro-choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:57 PM

John Hardly, you seem to be ignoring the fact   that vialbility of a   fetus refers to   whether a "baby" can live on its own outside the mother's womb. That's where the line is   drawn on whether the procedure is offered and at what stage. At eight weeks, that fetus is not viable. At thirteens weeks, it is not viable. At twenty weeks, well, maybe it is. See the difference?

No. a baby cannot survive outside the mother's womb. I understand that someone else can provide the care. But, it is my understanding that the Roe v Wade ruling doesn't provide even for the thin distinction you offer -- and the pro-choice mommys are fighting tooth and nail for partial birth abortion anyway. Seems even if we were to use your definition of "viability" we would still be snuffin' the inconvenient li'l shits anyway.

"I have not only noted that many who are "pro-life" are also in favor of capital punishment; but that the overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" are MEN. That includes the Mudcat. My, my, how interestng. Men's opinions on this do not carry the   same weight that women's do. If you don't like that, too freakin' bad. Men who actually respect women understand where I am   coming from on this; but then, they are also pro-choice."

I don't know where you get your stats but I don't accept that more men are pro-lifers. I personally know at least as many pro-life women. My mother was and my sister is and activist in the movement. That's a tired old rube and again, as with slavery or genocide one need not be directly affected to pass logical judgement. I respect women. There is nothing about being pro-life that hinders or limits that.

"My point is that people do not use the same definition for what could be said   to be the same   thing. Why is abortion   as "murder" acceptable, when   capital punishment is not?   And vice versa? I am in favor of reproductive rights (women should   choose if they want to carry a pregnancy to term) and NOT in favor of capital punishment"

Abortion involves the taking of an innocent life. Capital punishment, when done with due process is the taking of a guilty life. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. 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.

And "Reproductive Rights"..... if EVER there was a misfired euphamism it is this one. It's so bad it should be embarrasing to use. There is NOBODY on the pro-LIFE side of the equation who purports to limit one's RIGHTS to reproduce. The pro-choice side doesn't try to limit ones RIGHTS to reproduce either -- but if anyone is suggesting it, it would certainly be from THIS side of the debate.

"NO ONE thinks abortion is a "good" thing; but it should remain a legal and accessible option"

This is that "getting to have it both ways" part of the debate that really gets me. Like when Clinton said that abortion should be safe, available and RARE. But that statement passes the same judgement that Mr Hill does -- it says that what the pregnant woman is doing is BAD. But, and this is the nasty part -- though conceding that it is BAD -- it chooses not only to do nothing about this bad thing -- it actually wants to keep this BAD thing as an option.

It would be far more intellectually honest to admit that you see nothing wrong with the option than to condemn the act out of one side of your mouth -- and promote it out of the other.

You should be able to say with conviction -- "I don't want abortion to be any more rare than the availability for every pregnant woman who wants one". It should not be RARE until its functional usefulness has run its course, and every poor, defective, unwanted, or racially undesirable fetus is gotten safely rid of. For that matter until every goddamn yuppie woman no longer has to make the choice between a new kitchen or the third SUV in the driveway and this unwanted product of volutary recreational activity. It's her body goddamnit!

Who are you to pass the judgement that abortion is not a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:54 PM

John Hardly, capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible, & do not necessarily have all the evidence. Check it out.

And if I said "*Amputation* should be safe, available and RARE," would you call that "having it both ways?" Amputation is indeed a bad thing, but sometimes it's the best you can do.

If pro-life advocates put their actions where their mouth is they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages. Hardly any do.

And they'd vote for a low national speed limit, and vote against capital punishment.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:11 AM

well said, Clint.   Very   true that innocent people are   sometimes executed by the state.

John Hardly's judgment seems clouded by emotion. He also seems one of the most ignorant men I've ever come across.

Since when do all women get pregnant as a result of voluntary recreational activity? You mentioned rape just a few   posts earlier; surely even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly, can be   made to understand   that pregnancy can be a result of rape? Should such a pregnancy   be carried to term? What about when a girl is forcibly raped   by her own father   or brother?   It happens. Should   these products of incest AND rape   be carried to term?   What about women raped during in vasion during wartime? Ever been raped, John? I didn't   think so.

It might also interest you to know that women do actually become pregnant regardless of whether they use   birth control. My own   sister conceived her first child while she was on the Pill in fact. Birth control is still in the Stone Age; interestingly enough, variations on Viagra continue to dominate   pharmaceutical researchers' experiments, and it's more available to low-income patients than birth control.

When you're ready (or your pro-life female relatives are ready) to adopt all these inconvenient little babies, we can talk. Until then, your opinion on this matter is worth little.   You're    just another one of those pathetic middle-aged old men waving signs and hating women in front of the clinic.   Some of them stop at signs; others move on to guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:42 AM

"John Hardly, capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible, & do not necessarily have all the evidence. Check it out"
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.

"And if I said "*Amputation* should be safe, available and RARE," would you call that "having it both ways?" Amputation is indeed a bad thing, but sometimes it's the best you can do".

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

Are you saying it should be rare because it is an operation? Or are you saying it should be rare because you also understand that a pregnancy represent two people?

"If pro-life advocates put their actions where their mouth is they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages. Hardly any do."
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.

"And they'd vote for a low national speed limit, and vote against capital punishment."
I covered the capital punishment thing -- it's a distinction of innocent vs guilty. Besides, many pro-lifers actually are anti capital punishment. I have my own problems with it from a practical point of view -- I don't think we are capable of fielding a clear-thinking jury these days, and that makes me squeamish about capital punishmnet -- but it doesn't alter the philosphical and logical underpinnings of pro-life. It's actually a red herring. 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.

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.

"John Hardly's judgment seems clouded by emotion. He also seems one of the most ignorant men I've ever come across" "... even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly"
How very sweet of you to say! (I had to look back to see if my posts contained any personal attacks. Didn't find one.) Should I be unemotional?

"Since when do all women get pregnant as a result of voluntary recreational activity? You mentioned rape just a few   posts earlier; surely even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly, can be   made to understand   that pregnancy can be a result of rape? Should such a pregnancy   be carried to term? What about when a girl is forcibly raped   by her own father   or brother?   It happens. Should   these products of incest AND rape   be carried to term?   What about women raped during in vasion during wartime? Ever been raped, John? I didn't   think so."
You are jumping to a conclusion that, again, doesn't alter the logic of any point I've made. You are merely adding one more thing into the mix -- rape. You never asked me if I thought there should be any exceptions to a pro-life position. Of course I do. And most pro-lifers do as well. And I think my exceptions are still philosophically consistent. In cases of the life of the mother at risk -- historically no government has ever been against the concept of self-defense. In the case of rape , the choice for the life altering--and risky business of pregnancy was not the woman's, therefore it is understandable that she should have the choice of whether or not to shoulder the risk (element of self-defense).

Again, it shouldn't matter if I had been raped or not for me to be able to determine that rape is wrong. It shouldn't matter if I had been a slave or not to know if slavery is wrong. I shouldn't have had to be robbed to know that robbery is wrong......I could go on.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:11 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: 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 - 11:50 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:51 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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,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