BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 02:46 PM

I think most people would find it much more insulting to be refered to as "parasites" than as "little shits".

But the question of insult or "offense" is not really the point. In both cases what is involved is a kind of euphemism that seeks to distance us from what is involved. A fetus or embryo is not parasite, nor a bodily waste product, but a human being at an early stage of development.

I don't think talking about hypothetical cloning from single cells is really relevant here, Wolfgang. A single cell is not a human-being-at-an-early stage-of-development whether it is an egg, a sperm or a blood cell.

I think there is good research evidence indicating that a definition of humanity based on "onset of pain perception" would actually kick in before current viability.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 01:38 PM

Nicole Thank you for:

1 Reading no disrespect into my question

2 Answering my question and clarifiing your point.

I must say I agree with it I just needed to be sure I got you drift!


Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 12:04 AM

RapTOR (sorry for the mis-ID),

Forgive me but I'm still not clear on what you are saying as i understand it a woman can get pregnant and the man is responsible for the child finantualy untill its 19 years oldautomaticaly and has NO right to and opinion as to weather he wants to have the child(not that this is wrong).

How is the choice not the womans?

Well, I perceive no disrespect. Let me clarify a bit.

There are numerous circumstances in which a woman does not have a choice apart from rape. While the obvious cases occur in extremely poor countries (like most of Africa) and countries with large fundamentalist or anti-female populations (like the Middle East, India and many part of rural Asia), it also applies to western countries.

Let's just pick an example, and not an uncommon one:

What of a poor woman with 4 kids who can't afford or isn't allowed birth control by her religion, or who's birth control fails (as it often does), with a husband who won't wear a condom? Her economically subjugated position doesn't allow her to realistically refuse her husband sex without jeopardizing the welfare of herself and her 4 kids, if not rape itself. So what happens when she has a 5th child she can't afford food or medical care for?

This is not as hypothetical a situation as you might think -- it's the modern equivalent of several millenia of the choices women have made. When they couldn't afford (i.e. have the food) for a new child, abandonment or neglect were very common ways of dealing with it. If the choice is the new child, or the child you know and love, who do you choose to die? Or do you try and feed all of you, and have you all sicken and die? It's not something discussed in western society, but any anthropologist will tell you it still goes on, often subconsciously. Mothers seemingly perplexed at why an infant dies, when they neglected to ever feed them. Selective memory to protect oneself, I would say.

"Dumpster babies" are a modern version. It's might be better than being eaten by wild animlas on the hillside, but maybe not.

In the modern western era, women who do the same jobs are paid 25% less than men. A single women, particularly without health insurance, is hard pressed to have the kind of money that not only pays for the pregnancy, but allows her to take ANY time off near the birth. And not just money, but TIME. Kids take lots of time, the kind that a regular 8-5 job really doesn't allow unless you have a very understanding employer. Men frequently walk out and abandon their families, and while there's a lot of talk about how that's bad, men are really not held responsible. Imagine what you hear said about a woman who abandons a little child and leave it with the father... and a "deadbeat" Dad?

Then the working mother she is derided for leaving her child with a substandard daycare center, which she probably can't afford anyway.

A woman without a male partner is severely compromised in her ability to care for one or more children in our society. This would not necessarily be a bad thing if we held men to the same standards in regard to children as we do women -- two or more people is not only the easiest way to raise kids, but still probably the best. A woman with a partner (who is not lucky enough to have one of the MudCat gentlemen) may have to appease her partner at all costs to herself in order to continue to care for her children.

Many women live in a form of economic slavery, even those who appear to have middle class lives. Because of the disparity of the payscale, they may be trapped. And no woman really knows if her partner may walk out or even die and leave her financially incapable of caring for her children -- and our society does not accept responsibility for needy children as a whole, especially if the mother is not deemed "unfit."

This doesn't even touch on religious issues that confine a woman.

In a nutshell, *I* do think that men are equally responsible about ANY pregnancy and ANY child that is the result of their sperm (moreso in the case of rape or molestation) -- but since the woman is, in reality, going to be held virtually soley responsible for that child's care by our society, hers should be the final choice, by consulting the family, friends, doctors and spiritual advisors she needs to make her decision. These kinds of very hard decisions can't be decided by law, particularly when the law does not in practice judge both genders equally. Justice and law are not the same.

If we lived in an gender-equal society, then comments about how a man should have half the choice would be more appropriate and reasonable.

Imagine if every man had to get a woman's permission to get a vasectomy? Or NOT get one, because a woman decided he had to have one? That's not even the life-altering decision a child is, yet every man reading this is recoiling at the idea of someone else deciding what to do with the family jewels.

FWIW, I agree with the term parasite, in a biological sense. One might argue that a fetus is a symbiote -- since the species needs them to reproduce -- but on an individual level, no woman NEEDS a child and every woman who carries a child pays a physical price because the fetus draws the best and most nourishment from her body. And the fetus cannot survive without a human womb (real or technological), so in that respect, it's a parasite.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 06:56 PM

Interesting thought there, Wolfgang, about the "onset of pain perception" as a defining condition of the beginning of individual life.

I would tend to agree. Intelligent life is, by definition, that which is both self-aware and aware of outer stimuli. (And that includes plants, by the way, according to recent studies. They can't show a demonstrable visible reaction (lacking muscles), but they do react in an energetic sense to outer stimuli, and their reactions can be monitored.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:44 PM

It strikes me that, just as advances in medical technology   have made it possible for premature infants to survive outside their mother's womb at ages far earlier than they might have done some years ago; the same is true for the survival of elderly or terribly ill people who can now be kept alive via various life support systems. But the quality of that life may not be a very good one. We may be able to keep someone alive longer, but should we?

Fetuses or preemies can't speak and therefore can't offer an opinion on the matter; but we can and should ask our loved ones if they would prefer to be kept alive by heroic mesaures of life support technology, should it come to that.

Medical technology also allows us to know when a child will be born with severe birth defects. (Meaning, in some cases, without a brain stem,in which case immediately after birth the child will begin to deteriorate and die. Recent legal questions surround this rare but not unknown phenomenon; should the babies be brought to term so their healthy organs may be harvested to help other infants? Should these children be brought to term? Right to lifers don't even want stem cell research to happen, so you can imagine what they say to this.

Our culture has a profoundly troublesome relationship with death. It is also true that people are far more likely to sue for malpractice when something goes wrong in the hospital. A few decades back, it was accepted that mistakes were sometimes made. Better and more complex technology, not to mention a crowded and increasingly incompetent health care system, have created greater possibilities of error alongside this greater tendency to be litigious about the fate of our loved ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:28 PM

Does anyone really believe that, once it's got to that stage (whatever that stage may be) to kill a viable embryo is not killing a human being?

Yes, I do, more or less. To carry it to the extreme, medicine will be able (though I hope, not willing) some time in future to generate human life from a single cell. Each wanker killing a billion possible lifes daily (twice weekly, or whatever your preference).

Sorry about that too colourful language, but I think the onset of human life to be fully considered as such by the law is merely a question of definition to be agreed upon and not a good question for theorists.

Onset of pain perception seems a good definition to me, though others may disagree.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 12:30 AM

kat, might the Biblical reference to spirit be when "God breathed life into Adam"? We can probably safely assume that in the context of creation Adam was inert and NOT human until he took that first breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 12:17 AM

Thanks, Fionn. I'll watch for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:00 PM

Don't bridle at "parasite" McG. It has a precise meaning which was not abused, and it allowed a fine distinction to be drawn. I believe that in biblical times honoured guests were known as parasites, but I can't cite anything in support of this right now.

I hear you Kat, but in the documentary I saw, about one specific village in Kenya, mothers did seem to be the prime movers.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:47 PM

Viability isn't determined solely by the level of development of what's-happening-in-the-womb, but largely by the level of development of medical technology. Babies can be born and survive outside the womb at far earlier in pregnancy than would at one time have been thought possible.

Does anyone really believe that, once it's got to that stage (whatever that stage might be), to kill a viable embryo is not killing a human being?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:40 PM

John (or anyone else interested), this is undoubtedly more than you will ever care to know about various abortion procedures HERE, and definition and description of "partial birth abortion" HERE. I was in error in my above post. D&X is not the standard procedure for early (first trimester) abortion, I believe D&E (dilation and evacuation) is, although I shouldn't say because I'm really not sure. I believe this is covered in the second link I posted. If you really want to pin it down, check with a gynecologist or obstetrician, but in any case, it is my understanding the D&X is a late term procedure rarely used, and then only under the conditions I stated in my previous post—medical necessity. In any case, banning "partial birth abortion" when a doctor deems it necessary would quite possibly result in the death of the woman. Not something you hear much about from the "pro-life" advocates of these bans.

While googling through cyberspace in search of this information, I encountered a large number of "pro-life" web sites that described—very graphically—the "partial birth abortion" procedure in what can only be described as emotional and inflammatory terms: "The scissors are thrust into the baby's skull, the opening enlarged, and then the baby's brains are sucked out, causing the baby's skull to collapse. . . ." Note the often repeated use of the word "baby" rather than "fetus." The diagrams show a baby which is either full-term or very close to full-term. Another appeal to emotion.

In my opinion, abortion is a sad and undesirable thing. But I, personally, would butt the hell out and leave the decision up to the woman in question and her doctor, not to a bunch of people who want to cram their religious beliefs down the throats of the rest of the country and certainly not to a bunch of middle-aged men in Washington, D.C.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:01 PM

This is the part of Don's post that applies to what I was talking about.

'Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when third-trimester abortions are performed, they are done because the fetus has severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman. In these cases, the existing statutes do not apply because it is a matter of of medical necessity, and is, therefore, not "elective." '

I had assumed that the discussion was about "elective" abortions. Whether or not "Partial Birth Abortion" is a Trojan horse is beside my point (though I believe it is indeed a Trojan horse), as is the description of the third-trimester abortion, which it seems does *not* occur electively in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Do you have any information on how often it occurs in the other 10 states? I would suspect Don is right when the says "women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:50 PM

Yeah, LH? I think we're on the same page, well maybe same *book* at least, more often than not...just different ways of saying so.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:49 PM

Oh dear, I really wasn't thinking about my entire audience when I replied to LH. I truly do not want to choose offensive language on this issue but I abhor the term fetus and can barely bring myself to use it. Sorry, but I intended to suggest that human life begins at birth.

I like kat's notion that if an abortion or miscarriage occurs, the soul departs for greener pastures, so to speak. Then I can love my little lost babies thinking they're elsewhere on earth rather than dead and gone....


Sincerely, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:36 PM

What you said pretty well describes the way I see it, Kat.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:22 PM

"The term "partial-birth abortion" is a Trojan Horse. "Partial birth abortion" does not refer to any established medical procedure. It is a term invented by anti-choice activists"

So, Don,

What do you suggest we call it so that we can discuss it? I think we all are up to date on the political arguments -- and we all know to what procedure we refer. Or should we just not discuss it because there is not a specific medical terminology? It (as a term) was brought up (by me) merely because Clint said he didn't know if there was any limit to when an abortion could be performed. I merely told him, no, there is no limit right up to the very moment of birth.

I brought this up because several had already brought up the notion of "viability" and he had expressed some question as to the ambiguity of such a judgement (about viability).

I was merely pointing out that, regardless of the moral qualms you might have regarding human life=viability, it does not currently matter according to the law of the land.

I am more than happy to drop the issue (of whatever we are to now call partial birth abortion -- wherein labor is induced, an instrument is inserted into the fetus brain, and a now dead thing is stillborn), as arguing its finer points was not the intent of its having been brought into the conversation (as I just described).

(this isn't meant to sound nearly as snide as I know it's going to sound given the current atmosphere of this thread. I am just aware of having been corrected for something that is quite secondary to the point I was making. And I'd like to clear that up)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:20 PM

"Rapport" might be a way of conveying a friendly sort of attitude...

When women have proper access to health care, education, career structures and political influence, there will be less unwanted pregnancy and less abortion And that's what I was getting at earlier.

I believe the most effective way to reducing abortion is to bring about changes in society that would be welcomed by anybody who would use the label "pro-choice", and by anyone who is sincerely "pro-life".

Which doesn't mean there's not still a lot of room for disagreement as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:12 PM

Don and Alanabit, thank you, both, for those excellent and informative postings.

McGrath, while "parasities" might be as abhorrent to you as "lil' shits" at least the former is more accurate, though I don't particularly care for the term, either. Also, "human being" to me implies viable outside the mother's womb. Until then it is a foetus. Splitting hairs, again, perhaps, but it's the way I feel about it.

LH hit upon this a slight bit without particulars. There is one org. I know which conducted esoteric experiments during live births which showed the soul, i.e. silver chord with spirit attached, so to speak, entered the body of a newborn upon their first breath, i.e. the Breath of Life. Somewhere in the Bible there is reference which taken metaphysically relates to this, but I cannot remember the exact phrase, etc.

I personally believe we choose our parents long before we become a newborn and that we may *hang around* within and without the mother's body during the gestational period. If an abortion is warranted for some reason, I believe the soul has a choice of moving on to a different incarnation with perhaps better timing. It's all bound up in past lives, karma, connections of souls, learning from experiences, etc., in my own personal belief system.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:45 PM

Someone got you confused with Raptor, Rapaire. Raptor has likewise been protesting that he is not you. We should get someone else to join the forum now, called "Raptaire", just to totally confuse things.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:33 PM

Speaking of Jesus. . . .

There is the Biblical story of the woman who was caught in adultery and brought to Jesus for judgment (actually, knowing Jesus' feelings about capital punishment, it was an attempt to trap him into preaching against the established law, which said that an adulteress was to be stoned to death). Jesus, knowing what they were up to, yanked the rug out from under them by saying, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." They all stood around looking guilty, and after a few moments, dropped the stones they were ready to hurl at the woman, and wandered off, muttering to themselves. Jesus turned to the woman and said, "Go. And sin no more."

But while those who wanted to stone the woman were presenting their case, arguing, and quoting the law, as he listened to them, Jesus is said to have knelt down and, with his finger, wrote something in the sand. But the Bible doesn't record what he wrote, and this has been the subject of some speculation among Bible scholars. A theologian of my acquaintance once said, "I think I know what Jesus wrote. He wrote, 'Where is the man?'"

FYI:—

The laws proposed in an attempt to ban so-called "partial birth abortion" are ". . . vague and broad, with the potential to restrict other techniques in obstetrics and gynecology. It fails to use recognized medical terminology and fails to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes." [Quoted from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the Subject of "Partial-Birth Abortion" Bans, July 8, 2002]

The term "partial-birth abortion" is a Trojan Horse. "Partial birth abortion" does not refer to any established medical procedure. It is a term invented by anti-choice activists. Among a number of procedures prohibited by the proposed "partial birth abortion" laws are "D&X" (dilation and extraction), which is the standard procedure for performing an abortion. Which means the laws are intended to ban all abortions. Anything that might actually be considered a "partial-birth abortion" would have to take place late in the third trimester—the last three months of the pregnancy. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when third-trimester abortions are performed, they are done because the fetus has severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman. In these cases, the existing statutes do not apply because it is a matter of of medical necessity, and is, therefore, not "elective."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:52 PM

"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!""

Nope, 'twasn't me that posted that. It isn't even close to something I'd write. I don't think I'll post on this thread anymore, as 1) I see it getting awfully personal instead of being an informed discussion, and 2) I don't see anything but it going around in circles.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: alanabit
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:33 PM

This has got a little personal, which is a shame, because there is plenty worth debating.
   There is the view taken that life begins at conception and that if this life is curtailed it amounts to the killing of an "unborn child". Others - including myself - believe that life emerges more gradually and that above all we have to act in accordance with the wishes of the women in whose bodies this happens. The "pro lifers" see themselves as wishing to save "unborn children". The rest of us believe that we have no right to impose our own moral judgements on others. Now before the "pro lifers" come back with the answer that we are in effect forcing our judgements on unborn children, it is worth recalling that debate of any importance has long since moved on.
   It is hard to find anyone who really likes abortion per se and in practice it is always seen as the lesser of two evils. This is an issue of a personal moral dilemma. For that reason, whatever one's own moral revulsion to abortion is, it can not be legislated out of existence any more than prostiution can be, or gambling can be or dangerous drugs can be, or being rude to people on Wednesdays can be. All legislation can do is to set up a framework in which it can be carried out with the least damage to women.
   When women have proper access to health care, education, career structures and political influence, there will be less unwanted pregnancy and less abortion. There is no such thing as a pro abortionist.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:35 PM

Is "parasite" more or less calculated to offend than "little shits"?

How about "Inside the mother equals a wholly dependent human being. Outside the mother equals an almost wholly dependent human being"?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:34 PM

Yup, that's one view, and I certainly comprehend it, although it's not quite the words I would use. I would never presume to tell a woman what to do about her own pregnancy, although I might offer her advice if I thought it apt to do so. Depends on the individual circumstances.

The problem with laws is that they are usually far too inflexible to meet all individual circumstances properly. And that very problem has inspired countless folksongs, movies, novels, etc.

That's why a society would be better governed by wise and flexible people than by laws...but where do we find such people? And how do we agree on who those people are? It ain't easy. I guess that's why we have come to depend on written laws so much.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:37 PM

I can answer you with my unswerving opinion, LH. Inside the mother equals parasite. Outside the mother equals human child. Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:53 AM

I've never seen you acting so respectful, Raptor. What's up? Have you found Jesus?

Hey, folks...instead of finding a gender to blame, why don't we just try to agree on what is negative behaviour and what is positive behaviour? Anyone here in favour of clitorectomies and female circumcision? No? I didn't think so.

Okay....

Now, what about the thorny issue of when a fetus becomes a "person"? Is it a few weeks into term? Is it a few months into term? Is it (as is suggested in some spiritual writings) at or shortly prior to birth itself? Or is it at the very moment of conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg???? (which is, of course, prior to the actual fetus, per se...but you know what I mean...)

All of these matters must be considered in forming an opinion regarding the morality of terminating a pregnancy.

Now the fact is, lots of people have opinions regarding the above, but they DON'T KNOW the answer to when the "person" begins. So...their opinion on the morality of abortion is based upon:

1. emotion

2. conjecture

and most importantly of all... (drum roll)

3. the opinions of other people whom they have known or heard from in the past!

...whose opinions were based on...

1. emotion

2. conjecture

and most importantly of all... ('nother drum roll)

3. the opinions of other people whom they have know or heard from in the past!

...whose opinions were based on...

(ROLL ABOVE TAPE ON INDEFINITELY)

And that's life on planet Earth. Gotta love it! Can you believe people kill each other over stuff like this? Well, hey, sure they do! And over even sillier things, too.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:43 AM

McGrath wrote:

"And a helpful thing to do sometimes is try to state the position of the person you are arguing with, in words with which they would agree was a fair representation of their point of view. I can't see much sign that some of the people lashing out here would be up for that."


I would be up for that; really I would. It certainly is helpful to do that when the issue is as complex and divisive as this one. I do not think John Hardly was at all fair in his representation of my point of view (most of the time he was just picayunishly rhetorical), and that is why I lashed out at him. I asked him, in trying to clarify his point of view, direct questions regarding this issue, and he ignored them, or insulted my statements by calling them "tired old rubes.". He then used words describing women who have abortions that I found extremely offensive. Fair enough, I used offensive words too, but only after his. The fact that I used them to refer to him personally is what seems to have gotten everyone riled up; but that is what he was doing, too, just not in a straightforward manner. Other women who have restated my own views in this thread (i.e. men's opinions do not carry the same weight as women's, and those who have not directly experienced the dilemma of an accidental or rape-induced pregnancy might have less to say on this than those who have) have not been similarly disrespected by him. I tend to respond in kind in this sort of debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:29 AM

Fionn, I've read a lot about the female circumsion practices in Africa and while I believe it is so that the mothers do have a lot to do with carrying on the tradition, I still believe, according to what I've seen and read, that they are acting out according to the dictates of the patriarchy. In the accounts I've read, the men wanted their women circumcised and sewn so tightly shut that only a trickle of urine could escape. It is also a "guarantee" of virginity. It is said they get more pleasure out of the effort to "open" the girl up and they even sew them shut, again, after each birth.

It's more rare now, but little girls in this country were forced to undergo clitorectomies as late as the 1930's when thought to be oversexed, i.e. found playing with themselves, even when very, very young.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:36 AM

. You even stated that men are only responsible if they agree to an abortion, but apparently don't think they have any responsibility over the pregnancy in the first place!

I said nothing of the sort. I don't believe anything of the sort. Just because I state that I think a man is responsible in the event of an abortion in no way implies that I don't think he is equally responible for/in the pregnancy.

Clint,

Abortion is legal at any point in the term. The pro-choice advocates are even in favor of "partial birth abortion" -- and it has been held up as legal in our courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:54 AM

Nicole

Forgive me but I'm still not clear on what you are saying as i understand it a woman can get pregnant and the man is responsible for the child finantualy untill its 19 years oldautomaticaly and has NO right to and opinion as to weather he wants to have the child(not that this is wrong).

How is the choice not the womans?

Asked respectifully

No Disrespect intended

Raptor not Rapaire

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:14 AM

John Hardly:

"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 -- not the removal of a leg."

Abortion & amputation are alike in that they are bad things. Of course there are many ways in which they are different, but I was talking about that particular similarity.

Try self-defense instead of amputation. Self-defense is sometimes the removal of another life, and thus a bad thing, but better than the alternative. Like abortion.

And before you ask, I'm not saying that abortion is self defense.

I'm saying that you don't always have a choice between good and bad; sometimes you only get to choose between bad and worse, and it can be hard to tell which is which.

"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?"

I believe an egg, a sperm, or a fertilized egg is alive, but I think none is a human being. I think a viable fetus is a human being, but I don't believe a viable fetus is ordinarily aborted. Not legally, anyhow, but correct me if I'm wrong. I do not know at what point a sperm and egg become human or at what point a fetus become viable.

But whether or not abortion is homicide, we have a right to do it when we believe it is the lesser evil.

Letting both mother and child die when abortion could save the mother is wrong. Using abortion as a substitute for contraception is generally wrong (and impractical). Those are relatively easy decisions, though sometimes terribly painful. Other cases are not so clear cut and we have to do the best we can. Because we are responsible both for what we do, and for what we do not do.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:37 AM

Exactly my point, John.   You don't think anything is relative to the issue except for your personal moral judgement. You even stated that men are only responsible if they agree to an abortion, but apparently don't think they have any responsibility over the pregnancy in the first place!

It's like condemning someone for not being able to read, but not being willing to question whether they were taught to do so. A woman is evil/immoral/wanton/slutty for getting pregnant (but not the man who impreganated her). A woman is evil for getting an abortion, but the man is not responsible for her having to make the choice. A woman is horrible if she doesn't take good care of her child, but if she can't afford medical care that's her fault. A woman is a lazy slut if she doesn't work at least a demeaning minimum wage job while she has an infant, but we won't take any steps to address affordable childcare. A woman is a bad mother if she leaves her child at home alone, but, wait, there's still no childcare.

Issues that lead to the need or desire for such a decision are entirely relevant to the issue.

Fionn, I don't think we can separate abortion from numerous other social issues, particulary gender issues, any more than we can separate crime from other social issues. I'm not talking about men being responsible for everything wrong in the world. The entire anti-abortion movement is based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs which hold that a woman is the property of her husband/father/male guardian and he gets to make all her choices for her. It's about possession and control of women and children.

If one truly believes it is a moral decision, then they should also know that no one can truly judge another.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:37 PM

Ouch, Lepus! (re: your remarks to Peg) But when are you gonna come out from behind your aliases and meet the rest of us as equals like you used to? Love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 09:55 PM

Is the gender issue really that valid, Nicole and harpgirl? Surely it skirts close to the argument that men are responsible for all that's wrong with the world. Yet some of those pro-life attitudes that Nicole attributed to men put me very much in mind of Mother Therese's interference in India, retrieving foetuses from skips but with no apparent interest in any lives saved.

Channel 4 in the UK recently ran a long documentary on female circumcision in Kenya, the horrific effects of which I had not fully understood. (It is widespread in Africa; the program just happened to focus on Kenya.) I was surprised to learn that women are the main driving force behind the survival of this cruel, and often disabling tradition - mothers, who have themselves been circumcised, yet who are determined to put their own children through the same trauma. The men, it seems, show no great enthusiasm for the custom, but seem to accept that its for mothers to decide.

Thanks for the kind words harpgirl - also for picking up (as hardly anyone has done) on the thoughts that prompted me to start the thread. And yes, I do tend to think of all fundamentalists as victims of brainwashing, and therefore not entirely responsible for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 06:09 PM

As you say kat, it's "difficult for men to understand what a woman goes through...", and it's also difficult to appreciate what it's like having had someone you love murdered, if we haven't experienced that.

And what that means is that those of us who can't understand, because of that difficulty, should refrain from making judgements about people we don't understand, and their beliefs.

But it doesn't mean that we don't have a right and a duty to reach our own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong, even when we aren't in those situations ourselves. And it is pretty clear that, when it comes to issues around abortion, there are women who reach different conclusions, and the same goes for relatives of murder victims in relation to capital punishment.

It occurs to me that there is a significant difference between the context in which we are arguing - in the USA the question of the legality of abortion is very much a live issue; in the UK it isn't really any more. The question isn't so much about "the right to choose", but rather about what makes a choice right or wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Fast Eddy, the Agent from Duluth
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:31 PM

Peg, you are absolutely on the money! I'm not worth replying to. :-) But when did that ever stop you? You are as predictable as one of those punch-em dolls we had when we were kids, you always bounce back! You're like the energizer bunny, you just keep going, and going, and going...

This is why I think you should seriously consider our offer and apply for the job at once. We need people just like you at KICKASS FM...people who simply don't know when to quit, because that's what secures RATINGS! Yes! There is a vast, immature public out there which craves controversy and delights in backbiting, invective-spewing arguments that reach no useful conclusion but go on forever...like this thread.

May I use a popular phrase and say, "YOU GO, GIRL!". More abuse, please! More criticism! Do your worst. Put on some stilletos and walk all over my naked body...I can take it. You're right that music doesn't interest me much. Money interests me. And I see gold in them thar hills when I read your diatribes. I used your own words out of sheer admiration.

(By the way, I pretty much agree with you on the abortion issue, but who cares? It's not your opinions I value, it's your nastiness and your gift for verbal malice that really grab my attention. Reasonable people do not secure good ratings on radio shows. People like you do.)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:39 PM

It seems many pro-lifers are also fundamentalist Christians. While they claim a fetus is "innocent" don't they believe that we are each born in a state of sin and therefore not innocent. Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but I still find it an interesting point.

FWIW, I do feel it is difficult for men to understand what a woman goes through from sexual awareness to contraception, if available, which may fail, to being pregnant and having to make a decision about what to do (esp. if the pregnancy came about through force of any kind.)

Please note, I said "difficult" not impossible. Ultimately the decision comes down to that one individual, that lone woman, no one can, nor should they, make that decision for her, yet it happens all of the time. That it happens at the behest of men, sometimes, makes it even more distrubing, imo. There is no correlation in which mens' bodies are regulated by the laws of the land. No correaltion exists in which mens' bodily functions are so hotly debated and contested.

On the original issue of this thread, that is capital punishment, our newspaper runs memorial ads by relatives of people who have passed on. This past Sunday I noticed the following and found it interesting that after nine years, the deceased's family still wanted vengeance and believed, apparently, that his soul was not at rest in all of that time. I do not make judgement of them, just thought it was an interesting take from some people who have obviously lived with some of what we've been talking about:

It's been nine years since God took you home. Your memory is still fresh in our minds. Today our hearts are more at ease because the one who took your life is finally going to pay. Now you can finally rest.
Love,
Mom and Dad, etc...

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:19 PM

How about: "Within the last few posts we've had examples from both sides in the argument of how getting personal and hitting out at people who disagree with you can have the effect of destroying communication and preventing discussions from having any useful outcome."

I wasn't actually referring to John's last post. Which posts was I referring to? If the cap fits, wear it.

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

"I think the last few posts - from both sides in the argument - have demonstrated why getting personal and hitting out at people who disagree with you has the effect of destroying communication and preventing discussions from having any useful outcome."

I'm sorry, MofH, but I don't see where my post was doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 02:43 PM

I think the last few posts - from both sides in the argument - have demonstrated why getting personal and hitting out at people who disagree with you has the effect of destroying communication and preventing discussions from having any useful outcome.

"Useful outcome" meaning, for example when you end up with a better understanding of what you think yourself, and of what other people think, and where the differences are. Even when nobody changes their view, I think it is useful to achieve that much.

And a helpful thing to do sometimes is try to state the position of the person you are arguing with, in words with which they would agree was a fair representation of their point of view. I can't see much sign that some of the people lashing out here would be up for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 02:24 PM

Mary: I stand by my words. Every one of them. And you have chosen   to remove my words and put them in a post utterly without context (instead of offering to insert the posts of John Hardly's I was replying to), so I don't understand why you think this is somehow making a point about anything. That's what bothered me so much about John's words, was that he took things out of context and selectively commented on partial quotations.
Like you have done.
I was insulted by what he said, and said so. I still think he is ignorant (or at least, if he is not, he appears to be so) and intentionally offensive.


Guest Fast Eddy: you aren't even good at what you're attempting to do. Using my words to insult me? Not only unoriginal, but lazy as well. I don't think GUESTS are worth replying to.

And I highly doubt you've examined all my posts of the last six months in detail. What about all the music commentary? (Something you seem uninterested in)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 01:57 PM

Of course, John claims that it is okay to kill prisoners on death row since they are all "guilty" -- a fact which is demonstratably not true, but not okay to kill a fetus, because the fetus is "innocent" -- a belief which is unfounded at best while the nature vs. nuture arguement continues unabated. Was Hilter born bad or did his parents make him that way? What about the biblical Antichrist -- if he gets aborted, is Armaggedon off?

NicoleC,

No, I did not say "…it is okay to kill prisoners on death row since they are all "guilty"".

I was merely responding to the charge that pro-lifers are inconsistent because we are against killing the unborn but we are not ALL against the government killing murderers. I only addressed the difference between an innocent unborn and a guilty (by due process) killer.

I even allowed (two times) as how one might still choose to argue the finer points of capital punishment on the basis of a failing justice system. But, again, THAT does not mean that pro-lifers are inconsistent when they can make a distinction between a guilty murderer and an innocent unborn.

Are you saying that you are pro-abortion on the basis of its potential to save us from a potential mass murderer?

I have never referred to any murderer that has not been convicted by due process. I cannot imagine a due process that would convict on the possibility that an unborn. might become a murderer.

I (not the pro-life movement) do believe that capital punishment represents a pro-life position, and I would be glad to share my rationale, but it is too long to put in this already too long post – it would only confuse things more.

"John - in this entire discussion, you haven't mentioned men's responsibility until I did."

I never brought it up because I never thought it was germane to the discussion. At what point did you think it was?

But now that you asked me, rather than responding to my response, you now complain that my response is illegitimate because of its lack of timeliness.

Again, I do not get it. I thought you were against a man having any say in abortion. Now it matters to you whether or not I understand that a man is involved? (I do). So you are saying a man is involved and therefore SHOULD have a say in the commission of an abortion?

"You haven't mentioned alternatives until Ebbie mentioned adoption. I've never seen you support public healthcare issues or write impassioned arguments about pregnancy prevention and reproductive health, or a woman's right to self-determination BEFORE she gets pregnant. (Clearly, you think that she has no right afterward.) When it comes to the issue, you only have one thing to say -- you think it's morally wrong and you think you have the right to judge that morality for everyone else. That's your opinion and I respect that someone might hold it. But your outrage is merely reserved for the end product of the problem, not the cause, not the symptoms, and certainly not focused at a cure."

Again I didn't bring it up because it wasn't what we were discussing. You seem inordinately concerned about the order in which I choose to discuss this issue – as if, unless I make the points I am making, in the order in which you think I should make them, they are illegitimate.

As I said earlier. It may really grate on you. You may think a pro-lifer is a hypocrite if he doesn't choose to address the problem in a concrete manner that you find suitable. But the point I made (earlier) is that, all that unhelpfulness and hypocrisy may be true – but if abortion is an immoral act, it doesn't alter that fact just because those who believe it is immoral are jerks. Again, it's a bitch when total jerks are right – but it happens from time to time.

Yet even within this thread on capital punishment, numerous Catter's have waxed philosophical and forwarded ideas on how to prevent victims of crime and find better ways to deal with convicted criminals that don't kill the innocents convicted. Don't you think that's ironic?

No.

I have NEVER met a pro-lifer that holds the beliefs you describe.
(John Hardly)

He who sleeps with dogs rises with fleas. I've met quite a few up, and I'm not even involved with the "movement." Perhaps you should read some of the beliefs published by organizations like www.abortionismurder.com (contraception is murder, abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest), Right to Life (www.nrlc.ord) (no mention of healthcare issues or the byproducts of fertility treatments nor the death penalty or anytrhing other than they are also against euthanasia). Then there's www.operationrescue.org, who believes that God is punishing America for abortion and everyone who gets an abortion is going to Hell, but at least has the backbone to also protest capital punishment.

Even Dan Quayle publicly stated he didn't support abortion even in the case of a 12 year old raped by her father.

I did not say you couldn't find anyone who believes as you do. I said that I don't know anyone who does. I think what I am saying by that is that perhaps the mainstream of the pro-life movement isn't represented well by its fringe.

Quayle didn't get elected dogcatcher. (he made that comment during his aborted presidential bid).

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Fast Eddy, the Agent from Duluth
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 01:54 PM

For the last 6 months I have examined all of Peg's postings in great detail, and I have never seen a more moronic and intemperate barrage of abuse. She needs to own up to her offensive rhetoric and stop being so willfully obtuse. Her statements are intentionally offensive and inflammatory. Yet she refuses to acknowledge the distasteful way in which she is taking part in this discussion! Rather than seeking a meeting of minds, she engages in senseless personal diatribes inspired by hatred and an innate sense of superiority over anyone who disagrees with her about anything. She is overly emotional, takes everything personally, and flies off the handle like a berserk pit bull at the slightest suggestion that any truth but hers is a truth worth considering! Thin-skinned? This woman HAS no skin!

Peg, there is a lucrative job waiting for you as a radio-talk-show host here in the Midwest. Call us at once, and arrange for an interview!!! I predict that you will end up better known and more successful than Rush Limbaugh, Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer or any of those other loudmouthed bastards. You will be the Queen of broadcast (love that word) abuse! You will be the broad that casts aspersions like other people cast for fish!

Phone immediately at 1-800-IMA-JERK and embark on an exciting rise to fame and fortune, pissing off people royally from coast to coast!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:55 AM

Harpgirl - I agree that the choice of terminate a pregnancy is a type of freedom, but when it comes at the end of a lifetime of being trained to marry, trained to be submissive to men, and being stripped of basic choices about one's body, it's not much of a freedom. It's beats having nothing, I admit, but it's not what I'd really call "freedom."

Kevin - I agree that the so-called pro-life movement values potential life over those living. But female babies will be treated with the same lack of respect once they are born that their mother's were, so it certainly seems to me their lives aren't valued much either.

Of course, John claims that it is okay to kill prisoners on death row since they are all "guilty" -- a fact which is demonstratably not true, but not okay to kill a fetus, because the fetus is "innocent" -- a belief which is unfounded at best while the nature vs. nuture arguement continues unabated. Was Hilter born bad or did his parents make him that way? What about the biblical Antichrist -- if he gets aborted, is Armaggedon off?

John - in this entire discussion, you haven't mentioned men's responsibility until I did. You haven't mentioned alternatives until Ebbie mentioned adoption. I've never seen you support public healthcare issues or write impassioned arguments about pregnancy prevention and reproductive health, or a woman's right to self-determination BEFORE she gets pregnant. (Clearly, you think that she has no right afterward.) When it comes to the issue, you only have one thing to say -- you think it's morally wrong and you think you have the right to judge that morality for everyone else. That's your opinion and I respect that someone might hold it. But your outrage is merely reserved for the end product of the problem, not the cause, not the symptoms, and certainly not focused at a cure.

Yet even within this thread on capital punishment, numerous Catter's have waxed philosophical and forwarded ideas on how to prevent victims of crime and find better ways to deal with convicted criminals that don't kill the innocents convicted. Don't you think that's ironic?

I have NEVER met a pro-lifer that holds the beliefs you describe.
(John Hardly)

He who sleeps with dogs rises with fleas. I've met quite a few up, and I'm not even involved with the "movement." Perhaps you should read some of the beliefs published by organizations like www.abortionismurder.com (contraception is murder, abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest), Right to Life (www.nrlc.ord) (no mention of healthcare issues or the byproducts of fertility treatments nor the death penalty or anytrhing other than they are also against euthanasia). Then there's www.operationrescue.org, who believes that God is punishing America for abortion and everyone who gets an abortion is going to Hell, but at least has the backbone to also protest capital punishment.

Even Dan Quayle publicly stated he didn't support abortion even in the case of a 12 year old raped by her father.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:14 AM

By their words ye shall know them.

In Peg's first post to this thread: Viability of a fetus is what draws   the line between   abortion and "snuffing."

2nd post: 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.

3rd post: John Hardly's judgment seems clouded by emotion. He also seems one of the most ignorant men I've ever come across...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.

4th post: John Hardly keeps insisting he is using LOGIC. Yet he sounds   like a fanatic to me.

5th post: I think John Hardly got pretty personal. He referred to my statement...Maybe next time he is picketing a clinic he should...

6th post: I don't think calling someone ignorant is name-calling...I have better things to do than argue with a fanatic.

7th post: 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.

8th post: John Hardly;
once again you completely ignore what I am saying and attach yourself to three little (metaphorical) words...the distasteful way in which you are taking   part in this discussion...I am really tired of your constant misquoting and willful misinterpreting to avoid the issue.





Not the first time we see "little metaphorical words" when she's let her mouth overload her brain.



and while I was writing: well, at least you have gone to some pains to demonstrate how really tasteless and sick your views are. Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:06 AM

well, at least you have gone to some pains to demonstrate how really tasteless and sick your views are. Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:04 AM

peg,
I haven't misquoted anyone, willing or not. I have painstakingly pulled entire quotes as much as necessary and responded to them.

If you want to know what went through my head when I composed the line that you seem so offended by, I'll tell you.

First, it seemed very "mudcat" that is, it is irreverent language. That IS the coin of the realm here.

Second I purposely chose language that is as ambiguous as the debate. Snuffing is an interesting term because it clearly pictures two different and severly contrasting things. When one "snuffs" a candle it is an almost pacific action -- not blowing a candle out, rather, snuffing it. In fact you snuff a candle for that very reason -- so as to leave no trace (as blowing will shower a table top with wax residue.

But that was why "Snuffing" was a word loaded with irony when gangsters adopted it for "offing" someone. Therefore, to my way of thinking "snuffing" is a terrific word in this instance -- it contains elements of both sides of this debate.

When I chose li'l shits I also did so for the double meaning. On the one hand, it is not uncommon for us to refer to very loved children humorously in these term, as in "you shoulda seen what the li'l shit did..." conferring a humorous view of a mischievous child that is still very loved. I refer to my very loved pets as li'l shits when they get into mischief -- not out of anger, rather conferring humor on their innocent mischief.

On the other hand, it simultaneously makes referrence to the most vulgar of views that compares abortion to little more consideration than getting shed of any other non-living biological waste product.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:30 AM

BTW folks, when I say "women" I mean women who have or have had in the past, most of the equipment necessary to become pregnant and carry a child!!!!!...just for the record...!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:23 AM

John Hardly;
once again you completely ignore what I am saying and attach yourself to three little (metaphorical) words. I don't give a damn how long you've been here nor was I accusing you of being anonymous. Stop being so willfully obtuse. Obviously someone as smart as you (though I am beginning to wonder) understands what cloak of respectability means.

Do you or do you NOT agree that your earlier comments (quoted in that post) were intentionally offensive and inflammatory?? How can someone claim to be having a rational discussion about abortion when they use words like you have (i.e. "snuffing the inconvenient lil shits"). You need to own up to this offensive rhetoric. YOU. Not by pointing to what I have said; but by owning what YOU have said. That's where the cloaking is coming in; your refusal to acknowledge the distasteful way in which you are taking   part in this discussion.

For Christ's sake can you actually respond   directly to something for once???? I am really tired of your constant misquoting and willful misinterpreting to avoid the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:13 AM

Nick, you said...

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.

I disagree with you, Nick. Most women in the world have no choice but to carry to term. Therefore we can not say for certain that most women would prefer not to make this choice, to abort or carry to term. Beccause they don't presently have a choice. They must carry to term. American women have legal access to abortion but they don't necessarily have economic access, unfortunately.

Being able to choose not to carry to term with free access to abortion is definitely a kind of freedom for women. It's not the only kind of freedmon women have no access to but it is one important one. I did not say most women would choose abortion if they had complete unfettered access to abortion.

Having no need for abortion might make the world a better place, but in order for that to happen we must give women complete equality in all aspects of society in all places in the world. Even then, many women would choose abortion at some point in their lives when becoming pregnant. Just as the privileged ones do now.