 sj |
||
|
||
Abortion: Here we Go...
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Abortion: Here we Go... |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:12 PM "the very concept of 'believing' that 'X' is right implies that there is no PROOF that 'X' is right. " Now we need a "Logic: Here We Go" thread. You're apparently assuming, Bill, that knowledge is not a form of belief, and futher that the only true form of knowledge is that provided by proof. Both are debatable (and of course neither can be proven!). Epistemology lessons given for free; but right now I need to drive home and get the little one from the daycare.
Your resident philosophy major, |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bill D Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:08 PM There are various issues where seemingly reasonable people come down squarely on opposite sides....usually due to differing beliefs and/or definitions about 'first principles'. This is one of those issues. It simply boils down to feelings and belief. The **ONLY** way to fairly legislate the issue is to allow the individuals involved with the matter personally to decide for themselves. That is, if YOU ever have to decide about it, I will leave you alone.....and I expect the same courtesy from you if I have to wrestle with it. Please note...the very concept of 'believing' that 'X' is right implies that there is no PROOF that 'X' is right. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:28 PM I might have been; my mother conceived me out of wedlock and quite by surprise. Such a sentiment, however, is unbecoming a human being, regardless of their belief system or worldview. If you'll look at what I said in the DUI thread, I didn't take a pro- or anti-abortion stance at all. I was trying to represent the pro-life position and suggest that real communication will not take place on this issue until both sides can agree to accept the other side at face value. In this thread I merely cursed the direction the discussion was taking when it got into ugly insults. Obviously "Guest Jesus" likes ugly insults. That's too bad. Perhaps when she grows up a little she will mellow out. I like to think that maybe someday Americans will be able to discuss this topic in a rational and civil manner. Obviously they are not ready yet, and indeed even Mudcat, where the discussion is usually a notch or two above that in American society as a whole, doesn't seem quite ready yet for a civil and respectful debate on the issue. Which is really too bad, but hardly surprising. Finally, what is campanalogy? I assume it's the study of campanas, but for the life of me can't figure out what those might be.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:12 PM Mark, sorry- that may be your truth. But it is not THE truth. And it was John Donne, though I'm not sure how campanology strengthens your point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,God Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:08 PM Debate by all means, but please stop shitting on everyone who does not share your personal belief. This forum is disintigrating into trivial slanging contests and utter bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Jesus Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:04 PM If only Mousethief had been aborted. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Mark Grant Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM Clinton Hammond wants the truth. The truth is that A whole new live person begins to live at the moment of conception. The evidence for this is very well documented for anyone who cares to look for it, or rather anyone who doesn't blindly deny it. D.N.A.,personality etc. are all settled at this moment. If you want to kill off the most immature, vulnerable and defenceless members of our species, at the whim of one or other of the parties involved with their creation then be honest and admit it but don't try to pretend you are doing anything less. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant". Personally I prefer to grant full Human Rights, as defined by the United Nations, to all of our fellow human beings without excluding people whose existence might be a bit inconvenient for others. I'm not a killjoy or a spoilsport, have very good reason to be proud of all of my family and am very grateful for the fact the the joys, love and fulfilment I have experienced have been greatly enhanced by the troubles, worries and anxieties of raising my family, and also by sharing and helping with other peoples' problems. Whether we like it or not we are all members of the one human race and can only be truly happy and fulfilled by being prepared to make sacrifices for each other. Who was it said, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." ? Now there's the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:50 PM Amos- Hear, Hear! & Thanks. You've both saved me some time & said it more rationally than I would have. < Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM JeeeezUSS, Mouse Thief, chill thyself! This is an issue of individual morals which by rights are informed by individual conscience. There is a forum for such issues, known as individual speech. Get off thy high horse and use some. Rude remarks, especially on an overdone issue like this one, are part of the heat that comes with walking into the kitchen. As for as the issue itself is concerned, it's all in the timing, with a little wonky metaphysics thrown in. If two consenting adults wish to produce an offspring, there is enough general agreement that no-one (except a few old diehards from the 3rd Reich) seriously will try to tell them they must not. No-one stands up and says that it is hubris to abrogate the "creation" of children, that the decision can only be made by an approved and sanitized version of Deity, or submitted to the community for approval (except for the ChiComs, who cannot be trusted to think clearly anyway :>)!) If a given set of cells starts mulitplying in an unknown, miraculous but unwanted fashion handily categorized as "not benign", and the carrier of the tumour has it excised surgically, no-one screams and yells that the tumour has been murdered, or that some Divine will has been flaunted. Conversely, no-one denies that a born child should be protected from savagery whether from cruel elements, drunk drivers, or psychotic parents, Somewhere between these extremes is a rational point which can be selected as the point of individual life, after which individual life-rights are in force. Historically, at least, this has usually been designated as parturition. If you wish to present an argument that this change-point should be reallocated to an earlier point in the development cycle, you are certainly free to do so, and to change individual consciences by the power of your communication. You can proselytize all you want with any damn arguments you want to, and persuade all you want to. But what you cannot do in my opinion, is to invoke a religously-derived moral argument and then seek to mandate it as an act of law. If you try, you will be committing a great wrongness, morally as reprehensive as the alleged "moral offense" of terminating a pregnancy that cannot be supported in the individual's judgement. That wrong is undermining the already weakened Consitution of the greatest social experiment the human race has ever tried, thus contirbuting to the failure of that experiment, by subverting the clear separation (imposed as a vitally necessary part of the experiment) between matters of law and matters of religious belief. If you succeed in informing people's consciences of better truths, more power to you -- I salute your powers of perception and communication. As a final remark, the piece of this problem that gets all-too-often overlooked is this: we only have one Constitution, and one Great Experiment. But one can always get another body. A |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: guinnesschik Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM With all the options for birth control we have, and with all the media hype promoting "safe sex" there should be very few reasons FOR unwanted pregnancies. Abortion should NOT be a birth control option. How 'bout retroactive abortions? Pro-choice AND Pro-life, g'chik |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: MK Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:31 PM Pro-choice. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Mrrzy Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:25 PM Well, I'm jumping in, the water seems cold but hey... I am constantly surprised when someone who doesn't fit Kendall and Peg's observation (which is what it was, I think) is anti-choice, but it does happen a lot, so I guess it would make sense if the anti-choice group WERE men, and post-menopausal and/or ugly women, but unfortunately, it isn't... Personally, I am fairly virulently pro-choice; I'd like to see pregnancies considered as equivalent to any other woman's body part - under her entire and total control. But I'd also like WANTED pregnancies to be "registrable" or something (I have talked about this before here somewhere). Imagine this: You're pregnant and aren't completely sure you want THIS child NOW. Do nothing; if someone shoots you and kills the fetus but not you, it's assault, not murder. You can drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and nobody can do anything. Even in Massachusetts you can't be arrested for refusing prenatal care. BUT if you ARE completely sure you want THIS child NOW, you register the pregnancy. Now you have to wear blaze orange or something. Now you can be arrested for smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Now if someone shoots you and kills only the pregnancy, it IS murder. Why isn't this possible? |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM Kendall, that's exactly the sort of disrespectful, spiteful, off-topic thinking that has derailed civil public debate over this issue. I was hoping the thread could go at least an hour without this sort of shit. I guess I was wrong. I withdraw from the discussion. You guys have a mutual admiration society without me.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:11 PM and why is it most right-to-lifers are also in favour of death penalties? And south american Death Squads? I suspect it's because they're not so much concerned about abortion, but rather they're concerned with -thier- right to decide who lives and who dies... And when given a choice between PC and the truth, give me the truth every time! :-/ |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Peg Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:57 PM kendall; very un-PC of you to say so...but I have noticed this too!!! peg |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM I've noticed that the great majority of anti-choice people are either men, women too old to conceive or too ugly to get laid. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:54 PM Oh. Sorry; I didn't see that this thread existed before I posted to the other one. I'll go get what I wrote there and move it here. Well, not move it, but copy it. You know what I mean.
Alex |
|
Subject: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM OK, folks: Have at it, but lets keep the other threads clear. Best, Greg |
| Share Thread: |