Sanctity of Life [Archive I]

Theli

August 14, 2003, 04:19 PM

Is it really called pro-life? If you are not a pro-life are you pro-death?

Anyway...
As you are an atheist pro-lifer I guess you could provide a good argument (or basis for your belief) against abortion, something this discussion often lacks.

One argument could be that with our ever improving capacity to detect deceases and possible flaws in unborn fetuses, and the following desire of parents to abort such a child in favour for a less "flawed" one, our respect for our offspring and the value we put on it will be reduced to that of computers and phones, that we can just send back if they are broken.
A similar argument could ofcourse be made against spermbanks where we shop for children. Any comments? thoughts?
I saw something similar to that on 60 minutes where two parents had sued their doctor for not telling them about a braindamage (or something similar, can't really remember) he had detected during the pregnancy. If they had known of the defect they would have aborted the child.
They got a million dollar settlement, but I wonder if they ever told the child how they got the money.

Toto

August 14, 2003, 04:32 PM

Fear of sexuality run rampant. Fear that God will punish them for something.

winstonjen

August 14, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Neither of these apply to me.

Michelle

I never said it did. I simply spoke from the experience that I have with pro-lifers. I didn't mean to use stereotypes.

Biff the unclean

August 14, 2003, 06:57 PM

Many summers ago I volunteered as an "escort" for Planned Parenthood in Manhattan. An "escort" is a person who enables a woman to get through the lines of Christians who block the entrance. Since I would stand out in the street with them and chat with them when I wasn't knocking them out of the way I got to know where they were coming from.
I've traveled around the world and have been in the backwaters of Asian and Africa and have seen my share of scum. I've never seen any human garbage lower than this lot. It's all about control. They don't care about life, or women or babies. They just want to force people to obey them.

RevDahlia

August 14, 2003, 07:37 PM

ooh, Biff, must have anecdotes!

Biff the unclean

August 14, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by RevDahlia
ooh, Biff, must have anecdotes!
Well I remember one girl that arrived when all the escorts were busy. The RtL set upon her and started screaming at her that she was a murdering whore. The poor kid ran down Second Ave in traffic in hysterics. About an hour and a half later it had been quiet for awhile and one of the Xian women turned to me and said "You have to admit, after all, that we are good and decent people." Fortunately I had served in the Navy in the South China Sea so my vocabulary was up to an appropriate reply.

The School of Visual Arts held classes in the same building as Planned Parenthood so some of the women were only art students and models, this did not stop the Xians from attacking them. Models, it turns out, have even more extensive vocabularies than sailors do.

Philosoft

August 15, 2003, 12:28 AM

I also volunteered as a clinic escort for a summer, at the same clinic that was the site of the murders of Dr. John Britton and escort James Barrett by Paul Hill.

My anecdote: the bulk of the protesters were "lead" by a man called John Burt. He owned the property adjacent to the Ladies' Center, and the protestors used to stand on ladders next to the fence that was erected on the Ladies' Center property. This was sometime after the passage of the clinic access law, which has since been repealed (I think). There's a timeline of Burt's activities here (http://www.armyofgod.com/JohnBurt.html). Burt and his wife also ran a Christian shelter for young women who were pregnant, or otherwise had nowhere else to go.

Long story short, a couple months ago, Burt was reported missing. The media intimated foul play at first but, when Burt turned up alive and reasonably well some two weeks later - he had apparently been living in his van - the story broke that Burt stood accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old girl who was living at the shelter. Further revelations included the fact that several previous molestation complaints had been lodged against Burt (but he never went to trial, apparently) and that Burt had subsequently been prohibited from being alone in the shelter with any of the children. The current case is scheduled for trial next year, I believe.

pmurray

August 15, 2003, 12:36 AM

I think it was Dan Barker who pointed out that Christianity is not pro-life, it is merely anti-choice.

Why is it that the OT contains no provisiuons whatever prohibiting the infanticide of unwanted girl children?

RevDahlia

August 15, 2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by pmurray

Why is it that the OT contains no provisiuons whatever prohibiting the infanticide of unwanted girl children?
AFAIK, there isn't a verse in the whole Bible that deals with abortion per se, either.

True, there is that "thou shalt not kill" thing, but the rest of the OT is crammed with God-sanctioned killing. So the commandment against killing is hardly black-and-white, Godwise.

The way I see it... if God really cared about the fate of fetuses, his book would be far more explicit about it... as explicit as it is about, say, wearing mixed fibers and eating shellfish.

(If one of the more Biblically-literate folk round these parts do know of scripture that pertains to abortion and see fit to point it out, I stand corrected in advance.)

winstonjen

August 15, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
one of the Xian women turned to me and said "You have to admit, after all, that we are good and decent people." Fortunately I had served in the Navy in the South China Sea so my vocabulary was up to an appropriate reply.

Now THAT is a keeper. Too bad we don't have laws against stupidity or brainwashing.

Bad Kitty

August 15, 2003, 08:39 AM

Winstonjen: I never said it did. I simply spoke from the experience that I have with pro-lifers. I didn't mean to use stereotypes.

I didn't mean to infer that you were using stereotypes; I just meant to make it plain that neither of these statements applied to me. In other words, your theory did not cover someone such as myself. :)

Theli: Is it really called pro-life? If you are not a pro-life are you pro-death?

I was using the "pro-life" term as it is commonly used -- to identify a person who is against abortion (the same as Winstonjen used in the OP). Anyway, I was not making a philosophical statement about the appropriateness of the term "pro-life" itself -- which seems like a different topic to me.

As you are an atheist pro-lifer I guess you could provide a good argument (or basis for your belief) against abortion, something this discussion often lacks.

The basis for my belief is that I believe a human fetus deserves the same rights and considerations under the law as a human infant. I find no convincing evidence that human life begins at the third trimester. But as this wasn�t really Winstonjen�s topic, I don�t think the thread should be hijacked by this discussion. There are several threads currently on the board that discuss it in depth.

Biff: I've traveled around the world and have been in the backwaters of Asian and Africa and have seen my share of scum. I've never seen any human garbage lower than this lot. It's all about control. They don't care about life, or women or babies. They just want to force people to obey them.

I can agree that some pro-life protestors are just assholes. In every group of people there will be extremists and downright obnoxious people who are there for the wrong reasons. Also, I am always surprised at how much hate some Christian protesters can generate, since "God" is supposed to be "Love".

But it is wrong to paint all pro-life adherents/protesters (Christian or otherwise) with this same ugly brush. There are people who truly feel that the aborting of approximately 40 million babies since 1973 is nothing short of a holocaust, and those people feel it is their duty to those children and their conscience to stand up and say, "This is wrong". I can respect that.

Regards,

Michelle

Biff the unclean

August 15, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
But it is wrong to paint all pro-life adherents/protesters (Christian or otherwise) with this same ugly brush.
The reason I became an Escort was guilt.
I was ambivalent about abortion. I could see the point that both sides made and they truly seemed equally valid. I was just happy that I would never be called upon to make that decision.
My wife was giving a talk in Washington DC and I went along for the ride. We stayed at a hotel near the National Geographic headquarters (The Hilton I think, the hotel with the big Trader Vic's Tikis outside {you remember your land marks, I'll remember mine}) and were having breakfast at the hotel's restaurant that had windows on the sidewalk. I pointed out to my wife that there was a protest going on across the street in front of a brownstone. I joked about the protestors being very goofy looking, but I couldn't hear what they were chanting through the glass and couldn't read their signs. A Hispanic woman walked by or window who looked like she was about to have a nervous breakdown. She walked down the block and then came back and walked the other way. She did this several times with my wife and I munching on French toast and watching her. Finally she crossed the street and was immediately set upon by the protesters. There was screaming and yelling and they were grabbing her and pushing and pulling her. My wife said "That poor girl is in trouble, she needs help." After a few minutes the woman pulled herself free and lurched into the street. A passing car grazed her and knocked her down, though she was on her feet again in a moment and fleeing. It was only then that I realized what the protest was.
I cannot say that I believe in abortion. But I felt so guilty that I had sat on my ass stuffing my face watching this outrage happen without lifting a finger that when I returned to NYC I volunteered at Planned Parenthood.
IMO this RtL has nothing to do with respect for the sanctity of life at all. The topic of abortion could well have been chosen at random. From everything I've seen it has only to do with forcing strangers to obey you.

Loren Pechtel

August 15, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by RevDahlia
AFAIK, there isn't a verse in the whole Bible that deals with abortion per se, either.

True, there is that "thou shalt not kill" thing, but the rest of the OT is crammed with God-sanctioned killing. So the commandment against killing is hardly black-and-white, Godwise.

The way I see it... if God really cared about the fate of fetuses, his book would be far more explicit about it... as explicit as it is about, say, wearing mixed fibers and eating shellfish.

(If one of the more Biblically-literate folk round these parts do know of scripture that pertains to abortion and see fit to point it out, I stand corrected in advance.)

Actually, the Bible does address it indirectly.

To kill a pregnant bystander by accident is a criminal matter. To harm her so as to cause a miscarriage is basically a civil matter.

If the fetus were a person the second offense would also be criminal.

Bad Kitty

August 15, 2003, 02:14 PM

Biff:

What a replusive, heartwrenching story and what a repulsive bunch of people they must have been.

IMO this RtL has nothing to do with respect for the sanctity of life at all. The topic of abortion could well have been chosen at random. From everything I've seen it has only to do with forcing strangers to obey you.

I can only speak for myself: I am not a cruel or controlling person such as those you describe. I certainly would not engage in the sort of behavior you witnessed. In fact, I'd never participate in a protest outside of a clinic because no real good would come from it -- and because such protests inflict so much trauma on patients of the clinic.

I think society has to change it's heart and mind about the whole subject of abortion. I don't think that will happen by harrassing women as they enter a clinic.

Purple Smartie

August 15, 2003, 02:33 PM

I read several Christian pro-life sites such as this (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html) one which demonstrates how the Bible says that life does indeed begin at conception, or at least while we're still in the womb.

My personal beliefs regarding abortion: I'm pro-education. If women were educated about their bodies and empowered to take control of their sexual health, taught to use condoms or birth control pills, women would not get pregnant. If men were taught that it is equally their responsibility to ensure that their sex partner does not get pregnant, and taught that they do need to wear a condom every single time they have sexual contact with another person, women would not get pregnant. If people weren't so damn irresponsible, abortion would not be needed as a method of contraception in the majority of cases.

Of course there are many rape/incest situations which may lead to abortion, but I think if the woman did not have a choice to have sexual contact then she should at least have the choice to give birth or not, according to her own principles.

I am appalled at the number of citizens who gather outside abortion clinics and assault vulnerable young women who have done absolutely nothing wrong. The abortion clinic in my city also provides counselling, adoption services, confidential HIV and PAP testing and various other sexual health services, and I'll be damned if anyone tries to stop me from walking in there if I want to. I don't care what anyone's beliefs are, they have no right to physically or emotionally torture another human being.

RevDahlia

August 15, 2003, 02:41 PM

I was getting my birth control pills from PP for awhile, and twice had to wade through swarms of shrieking RtLers. Once I tried to explain that I was there to get birth control, so I wouldn't have to have an abortion, and they literally shouted over me. They wouldn't listen -- just shoved and yelled. Charming.

Hedwig

August 15, 2003, 04:12 PM

Christ...I am sooooo happy that the women's clinic I go to isn't under constant attack.

Those fucking people. :mad:

winstonjen

August 15, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I didn't mean to infer that you were using stereotypes; I just meant to make it plain that neither of these statements applied to me. In other words, your theory did not cover someone such as myself. :)

That's OK. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. :)

I was using the "pro-life" term as it is commonly used -- to identify a person who is against abortion (the same as Winstonjen used in the OP). Anyway, I was not making a philosophical statement about the appropriateness of the term "pro-life" itself -- which seems like a different topic to me.

The basis for my belief is that I believe a human fetus deserves the same rights and considerations under the law as a human infant. I find no convincing evidence that human life begins at the third trimester. But as this wasn�t really Winstonjen�s topic, I don�t think the thread should be hijacked by this discussion. There are several threads currently on the board that discuss it in depth.

Not at all - what someone believes can affect why they choose the political affiliations they choose.

I can agree that some pro-life protestors are just assholes. In every group of people there will be extremists and downright obnoxious people who are there for the wrong reasons. Also, I am always surprised at how much hate some Christian protesters can generate, since "God" is supposed to be "Love".

'Love' in the bible is demonstrated through genocide. It is not the book to use when you want to demonstrate love. Too bad fundies cannot see this.

But it is wrong to paint all pro-life adherents/protesters (Christian or otherwise) with this same ugly brush. There are people who truly feel that the aborting of approximately 40 million babies since 1973 is nothing short of a holocaust, and those people feel it is their duty to those children and their conscience to stand up and say, "This is wrong". I can respect that.

Regards,

Michelle

I understand this. However, they do not have the right to blow up abortion clinics or set fire to them.

winstonjen

August 15, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by RevDahlia
I was getting my birth control pills from PP for awhile, and twice had to wade through swarms of shrieking RtLers. Once I tried to explain that I was there to get birth control, so I wouldn't have to have an abortion, and they literally shouted over me. They wouldn't listen -- just shoved and yelled. Charming.

Well, to some of them, contraception = abortion.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Do these people think before they protest?

Loren Pechtel

August 15, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Hedwig
Christ...I am sooooo happy that the women's clinic I go to isn't under constant attack.

Those fucking people. :mad:

No. Those anti-fucking people! :D

truelies

August 16, 2003, 10:52 AM

My experience has been that most who are Pro-Life in the sense of actually getting off their butts and trying to do something about the out of control level of incidence of Abortion in this Society (as opposed to simply sitting thorough a Sermon on Sanctity of Life Sunday and knowingly nodding to themselves that we within the walls of Church X are so morally superior to the followers of satan outside the fold) are motivated by a genuine and passionate love for the weak and unloved.

Are some Zealots who allow their zeal to draw them into paths that alienate rather than persuade? Yep, I should know I was one. I was one of the early supporters of Randall Terry's Operation Rescue which mistakenly attempted to duplicate the methods of the anti-Vietnam War left of the 1960's in the sense of filling the streets with mobs in protest and clogging the gears of the killing machine to where it could no longer function. Personally, there is probably still some camera footage floating around somewhere of my body rolling over the hood of an SUV driven by the most prominent late term abortionist in the USA, crashing to the ground just barely clear of his front axle and lying there stunned for a few seconds before crawling out of harms way. Those protests were a complete failure- not only failing to slow the killing machine, but alienating the basic constituency to which we needed to appeal because we had in fact chosen to follow a path of action which reflected the moral universe of our opponents - we became the thing we claimed to detest. Randall Terry has become much the same sort of 'fallen angel' in the sense that his personal life betrays his principles as a Jimmy Swaggart or a Jim Baker with all the 'humility and compassion' of a Fred Phelps thrown in for good measure. What can I say we allowed our zeal for the Cause to overwhelm the humble compassionate willinness to help those in need that should have been the hallmark of our Christianity.

The best and most effective Pro-Life work is done by those who recognise that by and large the woman is as much of a victim to be as is the child in her womb. Most of those who 'choose' to abort do so in the belief that they truly have no better alternative in an impossible/unbearable situation. Providng workable alternatives in a loving and compassionate manner does in fact change hearts and minds without denying moral free will.

As to issues regarding birth control or human sexuality in general- most of the Pro-lifers I know (and I expect that I know a broader range of such folks than 90% of those who post here) it is a myth that there is great opposition to birth control for consenting adults or for minors with parental permission. Opposition in the public realm is largely to the tax paid funding of what should be a private healthcare expenditure. True I know many couples who in their own lives who do not use barrier or chemical birth control for what they regard as good and sufficient medical and moral reasons which they will endorse within the walls of the Church but without (in the vast majority of cases) the expectation that the State should compel their pagan (secular) neighbors to follow suit. As to christians leading sexually repressed lives -BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAA you have not a clue dear secular reader if you believe that urban legend.

cheetah

August 16, 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by JerryM
I'm sure many pro-life people are motivated by a sincere belief that all human life is sacred and should be protected. But there is a darker side. The more radical pro-life elements oppose artificial birth control, comprehensive sex education, and almost anything that evinces greater openness about sexual matters. And this represents just good, old-fashioned puritanism and authoritarianism. There's still the idea that sex is sinful and dirty, and anything that promotes sexual freedom is wicked. If you have sex and get pregnant, that's your just deserts. Abortion is wrong because it makes it too easy (as if abortion is "easy") to avoid the consequences. And it's even worse because abortion gives women control over their sex lives, which clashes with an attitude of sexist authoritarianism.

I couldn't agree with this more. I think a good percentage of pro-lifers have these feelings deep down, even though they may profess only to care for the life of the "baby." The reason I truly believe this is that pro-life organizations and people busy themselves with the LEAST productive way of preventing abortions, which is by force. They would be a lot more productive (as evidenced by the situation in other countries) if they put their resources toward stopping unwanted pregnancies. They would accomplish the same thing, maybe even more efficiently, so why don't they do it? Because what they really care is sexual puritanism, particularly for females. So, I marked others, as I feel it is more about sexual oppression.

cheetah

August 16, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by truelies
As to christians leading sexually repressed lives -BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAA you have not a clue dear secular reader if you believe that urban legend.

Maybe they themselves don't lead sexually repressed lives, but that doesn't stop them from wanting to oppress others. typically, Christians believe sex outside marriage is wrong and are more than willing to stick their noses in other people's private business and say this. They don't like other people doing it, whether it results in pregnany or not. But, if it results in pregnancy, it is an opportunity to have the people punished that have been doing something evil, in their eyes. I believe some Christians are against preventing unwanted pregnancies, as I talked about above, because it would actually allow people to feel more comfortable having sex with whomever, whenever. Even at the risk of killing lots of "babies" which they are purportedyl against, they'll prevent increased education about sex and just keep fighting against abortion only. They want to have their cake and eat it too!

truelies

August 16, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
Maybe they themselves don't lead sexually repressed lives, but that doesn't stop them from wanting to oppress others. typically, Christians believe sex outside marriage is wrong and are more than willing to stick their noses in other people's private business and say this. They don't like other people doing it, whether it results in pregnany or not. But, if it results in pregnancy, it is an opportunity to have the people punished that have been doing something evil, in their eyes. I believe some Christians are against preventing unwanted pregnancies, as I talked about above, because it would actually allow people to feel more comfortable having sex with whomever, whenever. Even at the risk of killing lots of "babies" which they are purportedyl against, they'll prevent increased education about sex and just keep fighting against abortion only. They want to have their cake and eat it too!

How many traditional/fundie/devout Christians have you ever bothered to try to actually get know as real people as opposed to engaging in flaming contests on bulletin boards or perhaps judging people based on urban legends circulated by folks with a vested economic interest (Planned Parenthood) in defaming their opponents? I am a fairly typical traditional/fundie sort of xian and your description totally misses me and most xians I know. Heck I can hardly remember the last time l had an opportunity to fit oppressing some innocent free thinker into my busy bigot's day.

Biff the unclean

August 16, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by truelies
I am a fairly typical traditional/fundie sort of xian and your description totally misses me and most xians I know.
And like a typical fundie no matter what you do, no matter how you behave yoy think it's just swell. I just told a story above abuot this very attitude

Heck I can hardly remember the last time l had an opportunity to fit oppressing some innocent free thinker into my busy bigot's day.
And you decided to come and post on an Atheist board because.....?

Loren Pechtel

August 16, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by truelies
The best and most effective Pro-Life work is done by those who recognise that by and large the woman is as much of a victim to be as is the child in her womb. Most of those who 'choose' to abort do so in the belief that they truly have no better alternative in an impossible/unbearable situation. Providng workable alternatives in a loving and compassionate manner does in fact change hearts and minds without denying moral free will.

How, by pretending to help? She will need help for 18 years, not a few months!

As to issues regarding birth control or human sexuality in general- most of the Pro-lifers I know (and I expect that I know a broader range of such folks than 90% of those who post here) it is a myth that there is great opposition to birth control for consenting adults or for minors with parental permission. Opposition in the public realm is largely to the tax paid funding of what should be a private healthcare expenditure. True I know many couples who in their own lives who do not use barrier or chemical birth control for what they regard as good and sufficient medical and moral reasons which they will endorse within the walls of the Church but without (in the vast majority of cases) the expectation that the State should compel their pagan (secular) neighbors to follow suit. As to christians leading sexually repressed lives -BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAA you have not a clue dear secular reader if you believe that urban legend.

Parental consent?! Sorry--that's saying that exactly those who need it won't get it.

As for sexually repressed lives--yes. Why do you protest things like adult bookstores?

Loren Pechtel

August 16, 2003, 12:51 PM

cheetah

August 16, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by truelies
How many traditional/fundie/devout Christians have you ever bothered to try to actually get know as real people as opposed to engaging in flaming contests on bulletin boards or perhaps judging people based on urban legends circulated by folks with a vested economic interest (Planned Parenthood) in defaming their opponents? I am a fairly typical traditional/fundie sort of xian and your description totally misses me and most xians I know. Heck I can hardly remember the last time l had an opportunity to fit oppressing some innocent free thinker into my busy bigot's day.

A lot. My old best friend was a traditional baptist and I lived in an area where almost everyone was christian. I thought I was weird for having doubts at first. In fact, I was very discriminated against for my lack of belief, amongst all the other tough things teens have to deal with. So, I speak from some of all the experiences you listed and, as always, am only speaking about a asegment of the Christian pro-life population. You'll notice I didn't say something like, "Every last one of those pro-life Christians thinks...."

truelies

August 16, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
PP is a non-profit and in general runs at a loss (donations make up the difference.) What vested interest do they have in more sex problems?!

PP operates the largest chain of Abortion Clinics in the USA. Non-profit or not a large number of people draw lush meal tickets from the continued prosperity of PP. Since most of these folks enjoy eating just like the rest of us I am sure that they will do what they must to keep those fees, donations and lets not forget Government Grants and Contracts pouring in. Don't think for a minute that 'following the money' does not lead to the true interests/motivations of the non-profit/charitable sector just as well as it does with for profir business or Government Agencies. In fact follow the money works for just about everyone short of the level of affluence which is past even the remote 'I want' level of materialism. Then the goal becomes Power over others IMHO of course.

phil

August 16, 2003, 06:59 PM

There are always radical people out there, but that tells nothing of the morality of a subject.

Why do people get abortions? Because they can't afford a kid, because they don't want a kid, because they don't want to get caught, becuase they don't want the responsibility of raising a child?

So selfish. Abortion is taking away someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just so someone else can be comfortable. Come on, people on death row get more respect than the unborn.

If there is any reason the person does not want a child, they can have the baby and have it adopted. What is wrong with doing that? Is that not a better alternative?

-phil

Biff the unclean

August 16, 2003, 07:54 PM

It is interesting the image of themselves RtLers present on this board.
Yet all of us who have been involved with them on both coasts and in between have all had experiences that were consistent with one another. In the months that I spent "escorting" in New York City I got to stand around and talk to hundreds of them. I found that there wasn't a very wide range in these folks. "Cut from the same cloth" is the phrase that comes to mind. They even spoke using the same set of cliches.

winstonjen

August 16, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
No. Those anti-fucking people! :D

:notworthy

Wanna get it on? ;)

Anyway, remember this quote. I don't remember where I heard it, perhaps someone could enlighten me.

"The moral majority are neither."

Chicken Girl

August 17, 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by phil
If there is any reason the person does not want a child, they can have the baby and have it adopted. What is wrong with doing that? Is that not a better alternative?

-phil

What if the woman has a medical problem such that pregnancy and/or childbirth poses a serious risk to her health?

Is she "selfish" for having an abortion to save her life?

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Chicken Girl
Is she "selfish" for having an abortion to save her life?

I would say "no" to selfishness. I have read a SEXtion in "Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment," and an abortion is about 20 times safer than childbirth for the woman. It is the RTL group that is selfish. Also, childbirth is easier for both mother and child when the child is planned for and wanted.

cheetah

August 17, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by truelies
PP operates the largest chain of Abortion Clinics in the USA. Non-profit or not a large number of people draw lush meal tickets from the continued prosperity of PP. Since most of these folks enjoy eating just like the rest of us I am sure that they will do what they must to keep those fees, donations and lets not forget Government Grants and Contracts pouring in. Don't think for a minute that 'following the money' does not lead to the true interests/motivations of the non-profit/charitable sector just as well as it does with for profir business or Government Agencies. In fact follow the money works for just about everyone short of the level of affluence which is past even the remote 'I want' level of materialism. Then the goal becomes Power over others IMHO of course.

Well, gee, then why would they also be offering contraceptive services and counseling? That would work against their own future "profits" in abortion! Your argument is pretty much totally without merit. Anti-choicers want to see PP shut down and want to believe it's an evil institution, but they do far more to prevent unwanted pregnancy than any other org I know of.

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
Well, gee, then why would they also be offering contraceptive services and counseling? That would work against their own future "profits" in abortion! Your argument is pretty much totally without merit. Anti-choicers want to see PP shut down and want to believe it's an evil institution, but they do far more to prevent unwanted pregnancy than any other org I know of.

Not only that, but Obligation-to-Lifers do not support government aid for new parents (those that I know of, anyway). How logical.

:boohoo:

phil

August 17, 2003, 03:17 PM

What if the woman has a medical problem such that pregnancy and/or childbirth poses a serious risk to her health?

It's amazing how much this agument is used. How many people do you know that have died from having a baby? The ratio is tremendously in favor of the mother surviving. Almost all abortions are for a reason other than the mother's own safety.

In the extremely rare event that either the mother or baby must die for the other to live, the choice is up to the parents.

People want pleasure without responsibility. How foolish. If you get promoted in a job, you get added responsibility. If you're going to have sex, you might as well accept the fact that you might end up being responsible for birthing a life.

To kill a son or daughter because its cheaper or because you don't want them is not selfish?

-phil

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by phil
It's amazing how much this agument is used. How many people do you know that have died from having a baby?

Like I mentioned earlier, about 20 times as many as those who have an abortion. :p

The ratio is tremendously in favor of the mother surviving. Almost all abortions are for a reason other than the mother's own safety.

[QUOTE][B]In the extremely rare event that either the mother or baby must die for the other to live, the choice is up to the parents.

The parents of the baby or the mother?

People want pleasure without responsibility. How foolish. If you get promoted in a job, you get added responsibility. If you're going to have sex, you might as well accept the fact that you might end up being responsible for birthing a life.

Then you oppose contraception?

To kill a son or daughter because its cheaper or because you don't want them is not selfish?

-phil

But what about cases where the baby is born without a brain? 99% of such pregnancies naturally abort. How is giving birth to a pile of flesh that will rot within weeks any better?

Hedwig

August 17, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by phil
It's amazing how much this agument is used. How many people do you know that have died from having a baby? The ratio is tremendously in favor of the mother surviving. Almost all abortions are for a reason other than the mother's own safety.

In the extremely rare event that either the mother or baby must die for the other to live, the choice is up to the parents.

People want pleasure without responsibility. How foolish. If you get promoted in a job, you get added responsibility. If you're going to have sex, you might as well accept the fact that you might end up being responsible for birthing a life.

To kill a son or daughter because its cheaper or because you don't want them is not selfish?

-phil

Phil, I'm a woman and my reproductive organs are extremely messed up. I've already been told that it would be a bad idea to ever try to carry a child to term. So I'm definitely one woman who would fall into the high risk category. It's a damn good thing I don't want kids anyway.

phil

August 17, 2003, 04:29 PM

The parents of the baby or the mother?
The parents of the baby. However, if the parents of the baby are minors, then it might be good to get advice from their parents.

Then you oppose contraception?
No. But contraception methods aren't 100% effective (they come pretty close though). You still have to be willing to accept the responsibility for a child if one should come along.

But what about cases where the baby is born without a brain? 99% of such pregnancies naturally abort. How is giving birth to a pile of flesh that will rot within weeks any better?
And what about babies born without hearts too? Are you going to bring up every fatal defect that can happen? Once again, the vast majority of births out there are normal ones.

I realize stuff happens, but it shouldn't be like "Whoops, I'm pregnant. I guess I'll just book an appointment with the abortionist."

That is definitely not a life or death situation (well, for the baby it is). And that is the abortion that I'm against.

Hedwig, I am sorry to hear your situation. Have yourself checked out again. I prayed for you.

-phil

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Hedwig
Phil, I'm a woman and my reproductive organs are extremely messed up. I've already been told that it would be a bad idea to ever try to carry a child to term. So I'm definitely one woman who would fall into the high risk category. It's a damn good thing I don't want kids anyway.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Another shining case for women's rights. :)

It's people like Phil that make me support abortion even decades after birth. ;) (Only joking, of course)

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by phil
I realize stuff happens, but it shouldn't be like "Whoops, I'm pregnant. I guess I'll just book an appointment with the abortionist."

That's not how it is. With pro-lifers stigmatising women, labelling those who have abortions as murderers, who would want an abortion as the first resort? It's a very tough choice.

Chicken Girl

August 17, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by phil
It's amazing how much this agument is used. How many people do you know that have died from having a baby?

While better health care makes pregnancy and childbirth much safer here than in developing countries, it can still cause serious problems, especially for teens.

After a little google searching:

From here (http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml):
When a woman is too young, pregnancy�wanted or unwanted�can be dangerous for both mother and infant. Complications of childbirth and unsafe abortion are among the main causes of death for women under age 20. Even under optimal conditions, young mothers, especially those under age 17, are more likely than women in their 20s to suffer pregnancy-related complications and to die in childbirth.

And here (http://coco.essortment.com/teenpregnancyh_ryot.htm):
Teen moms are more likely to have a baby that is premature and low birth weight. [...] A low birth weight baby is one that is born with a weight of less than 5 1/2 pounds. These babies have a greater risk of being born with major birth defects.

The risks for the teen mom are great as well. Pregnancy and birth can put a tremendous strain on a teenager's body. If bone structure is not fully developed, she takes the risk of injuring her spine and pelvic bones, altering her life forever.

And here (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/mh_prgdeath.htm):
Each year, 300-500 pregnancy-related deaths are identified in the United States. However, another 500-800 such deaths are probably not identified as being pregnancy related.

[...]

The leading causes of pregnancy-related death are hemorrhage (bleeding), pulmonary embolism (sudden blockage in the lungs by a blood clot or amniotic fluid), and preeclampsia or eclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy).

Chicken Girl

August 17, 2003, 05:16 PM

and from here (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html),

Complications from pregnancy is the 7th most common cause of death for 15-24 year old women,
10th for 25-34 year old women,
and 18th for 35-44 year old women.

cheetah

August 17, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by phil
No. But contraception methods aren't 100% effective (they come pretty close though). You still have to be willing to accept the responsibility for a child if one should come along.
-phil

No we don't. If we make our best good faith effort to avoid pregnancy, there's no reason for punishment.

winstonjen

August 17, 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
No we don't. If we make our best good faith effort to avoid pregnancy, there's no reason for punishment.

Exactly. And there should be no punishment involved for engaging in consensual sex.

Bad Kitty

August 18, 2003, 07:18 AM

Winstonjen: Exactly. And there should be no punishment involved for engaging in consensual sex.

There should be no punishment for being conceived either.

abe smith

August 18, 2003, 09:32 AM

... is extremely a dubitable qy to begin with.
To inquire "What motivates them?" is a meaningless qy. No outsider is sufficiently-privy to any other individual's innards to be able to assert knowledge of what's in-there. And (hence), respondants's responses here to the OP qy are off-the-wall statements of their own OPINIONS; and the results of this present poll have no more validity than you'ld get spinning a dredel; or less.
To be sure, anyone here can post anything they like here, at Infidels, or anything (rather) that the monitors are willing to allow...

Alonzo Fyfe

August 18, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by abe smith
... is extremely a dubitable qy to begin with.
To inquire "What motivates them?" is a meaningless qy. No outsider is sufficiently-privy to any other individual's innards to be able to assert knowledge of what's in-there.

False.

We are unable to see what is inside an atom, but by looking at the behavior of atoms we can make reasonable inferences, create experiments, and conduct tests. From this we form theories about what is in there. These theories are more or less accurate, but getting more accurate over time.

The same thing is true about a person's beliefs and desires. We observe their behavior, and postulate a set of beliefs and desires that best explains the behaviors. We form counter-factuals, and test the theory against the counterfactuals.

This is an every day process. We are constantly doing this to our friends, co-workers, even neighbors. When they surprise us, we revise our theories. But often, we do a very good job of predicting their behavior -- a job that depends on the quality of our belief/desire theories.

In answering the question, "What motivates them", I think that the best theory states that it will not be the same for all people. However, one dominant (and, perhaps, the largest) motivational force comes from the realization that THEY might have been aborted.

My mother could have had an abortion. The implications are frightening. Now, think of 45 million people who have been aborted -- people who were not as lucky as me -- people who did not get a chance to experience this life.

This is the thinking that rests behind a substantial portion of the motivation.

In my own case, I do not react to this with fear -- claiming some sort of right to the use of my mother's body without her consent. I react with gratitude -- the use of my mother's body for 9 months under increadibly dangerous and disruptive circumstances was a gift. One does not have a right to demand a gift. One accepts it graciously, with a thank you.

After all, if one's parents had not have had sex, then one would not have been conceived, resulting in the same non-experience of the world. This motivates an objection to the use of birth control techniques. "What if my parents had used birth control? I would not have been here. Horrors! Gasp! Using birth control is wrong."

Note that this is one of the ways of evaluating different theories -- including theories of motivation. By the simplicity and the power of the theory. The more that can be explained, and the simpler the explanation, the better the theory.

It can be done. And it is done. Everybody does it, every day, all day long. We could not survive in each other's company if we could not make accurate predictions of each other's behavior.

abe smith

August 18, 2003, 10:53 AM

I reiterate my opinion, that we do *not know* what motivates others's behaviour. Note, that individuals themselves probably do not know what motivates their OWN behaviours.; including you & me.
As for the "Gee, it could've been ME" matter.... well your, my, anyone-whoever's being here in the world at-all is a fact of absolute RANDOMNESS! Even at this time, of in vitro/selective fertilization &
implantation, NO-ONE's individually making it through the conception dice-throw into life is anything but a random event.
YOU are just an accident, like all the rest of us.
Millions, billions of spermatozoa die unmated every moment; millions of human ova are never fertilized; more millions of zygotes die in the early stages of gestation, by NATURAL selection, quite without any deliberate human intervention or choice.
No-one of us human beings is nor has ever been "SPECIAL". If that sort of wastage is natural, then please, folks, do not prate to me about the sanctity of the reproductive materials & processes.
Of course, I reject anyone's bland assertion that "god" has anything whatever to do with all this!

Alonzo Fyfe

August 18, 2003, 11:22 AM

I don't understand the intent of your response. I do not see anything that refutes what I wrote (except you used a strict standard of 'know' that would rule out any possibility of us 'knowing' the structure of an atom, for example, or anything else that we infer from our observations).

I agree with you that the concerns expressed does not JUSTIFY the conclusion. But the original question does not ask, "what JUSTIFIES this attitude," but "what EXPLAINS this attitude."

An explanation is not necessarily a justification. And I think that the explanation stands.

cheetah

August 18, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
There should be no punishment for being conceived either.

I don't believe that one can characterize the abortion of a lump of cells as punishment to those cells, just as I don't consider clipping my fingernails to be punishment of my fingernails.

Biff the unclean

August 18, 2003, 12:06 PM

The population of this country is something around the order of three hundred million. Which would mean that there were around One hundred and fifty million women. Where is the figure of forty-five million abortions coming from? It doesn't add up.

Bad Kitty

August 18, 2003, 12:18 PM

I don't believe that one can characterize the abortion of a lump of cells as punishment to those cells, just as I don't consider clipping my fingernails to be punishment of my fingernails.

Well, that's the crux of the problem isn't it. You believe something different than I do.

But a fingernail clipping won't ever grow into an entire human being, will it? The truth is, the "clump of cells" you are describing will, in fact, become a human person. A human person ALWAYS starts as that kind of clump of human cells -- never as a finger nail.

You just wish to give that clump of cells "personhood" at some later time than I do. So I believe that I can characterize the abortion of that clump of cells as punishment -- death certainly qualifies as punishment to me.

Michelle
edited for code typos

Bad Kitty

August 18, 2003, 12:25 PM

Biff: The population of this country is something around the order of three hundred million. Which would mean that there were around One hundred and fifty million women. Where is the figure of forty-five million abortions coming from? It doesn't add up.

45 million is a worldwide number:

In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted each year
There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day

US figures:

1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old

Abortion Information (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

cheetah

August 18, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Well, that's the crux of the problem isn't it. You <i>believe</i> something different than I do.

But a fingernail clipping won't ever grow into an entire human being, will it? The truth is, the "clump of cells" you are describing will, in fact, become a human person. A human person ALWAYS starts as that kind of clump of human cells -- never as a finger nail.

You just wish to give that clump of cells "personhood" at some later time than I do. So I <i>believe</i> that I can characterize the abortion of that clump of cells as punishment -- death certainly qualifies as punishment to me.

Michelle

Of course, my point was that most (barring fundies that don't believe in sex not for procreation or outside of marriage) people agree that people using contraception are responsible and shouldn't have to be punished if they use contraception properly. What people disagree on is whether or not that is contradicted by the greater punishment of having an abortion. Obviously I got your point, but I think people fail to acknowledge the importance of my point. There needs to be deeper thought about that than, "Death is worse punishment for the fetus." Ok, fine, what do you propose to do? There needs to be some action other than forcing people to have babies. Sex is not just for procreation and people shouldn't have to have babies if their recreational sex ends up with procreation. They should have an opportunity to mitigate these unintended consequences, particularly if they were responsible. What you are basically saying is that if someone doesn't want a child, they shouldn't have sex, becauase it MIGHT result in conception, but then you're basically saying sex should only be for procreation or, possibly, for fun for people who don't mind procreating, too. Well, there are millions of us who do not intend to procreate, ever or maybe just at that particular time, and it is unrealistic to expect that those many tens of millions of us should stop having sex, just in case.

Bad Kitty

August 18, 2003, 12:47 PM

AF: However, one dominant (and, perhaps, the largest) motivational force comes from the realization that THEY might have been aborted.
Why do you think this is dominant and the largest motivational force? Are you just guessing because you feel some fear, then applying how you feel to others? Do you have some data that claims that this is the largest motivational force for people who are against abortion?

I don't feel fear, I never even think of my mother aborting me. I feel empathy. However, just because those are MY personal feelings, I wouldn't extend that to all pro-life people. I have yet to see good data on the motivational forces/beliefs for the well over over 40% of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life".***

Nor do my anti-abortion beliefs extend to an anti-birth control stance -- which to me is ludicrious.

*** Polling data:

In 1995, a Gallup polls found that 56% of respondents described themselves as "pro-choice," to only 33% who self-identified as pro-life.

In May 2003, 48% of Americans told Newsweek they considered themselves pro-life compared to 47% saying they considered themselves pro-choice, with 5% not knowing.

Hedwig

August 18, 2003, 03:40 PM

I've mentioned this story before...but I thought it might throw some more context into the whole "what if I'd been aborted" thing. I had a girl friend in junior high and high school who was nearly aborted as an embryo herself. Her father (sperm donor, really...she has a step-father who is far more of a father to her) gave her mother the money for an abortion and some extra "to buy yourself something nice". Her mother refused and she was born and raised by her mom and stepdad. Not ideal parents, but they're decent people. All her life my friend was staunchly pro-life and disliked the fact that I and most of her female friends was pro-choice because "it could have easily been me."

At eighteen, she made a bad decision and slept with a guy who wasn't the most ideal make of a boyfriend. She came up pregnant as a result...with twins. And it was only then, faced with the very real possibility of being a teenage mother, not going to college, not getting the future that she envisioned for herself, that she began to see the complexity of the situation for what it was. It was anything but the black and white idea that she had thought it was all those years. (And no, I'm not suggesting the RTL people on this board are seeing it as black and white...but she did as a RTLfer.)

She wound up getting an abortion. And to my knowledge (we weren't close enough at the time that I felt I could ask) she doesn't regret the decision. It was anything but easy. Her stepfather had to confront the boyfriend before he was willing to pay for half the medical expenses (which he had previously promised that he would and then later refused.) The proceedure was only partially successful. One of the twins was aborted. The other one she later miscarried in the bathroom of her place of employment...not pretty.

Really, speculating about a situation and actually living through it are two entirely different things.

This isn't meant to be an anti-RTL diatribe or anything. I just thought it would be a good story to include for perspective.

winstonjen

August 18, 2003, 06:53 PM

All I have to say to pro-lifers about contraception is this: "If contraception = sin, why is the rhythm method OK?"

Theli

August 18, 2003, 07:49 PM

But a fingernail clipping won't ever grow into an entire human being, will it? The truth is, the "clump of cells" you are describing will, in fact, become a human person. A human person ALWAYS starts as that kind of clump of human cells -- never as a finger nail.
Sperm will given the right conditions grow into a human also, does that mean that masturbation is murder?

Biff the unclean

August 18, 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal
Yeah the third world where they need it most. Perhaps some day with the spread of education and the realization of womens rights these benighted places will benifit from it too

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old

That's pretty hard to believe.
It's also pretty hard to believe that you can be so callus as to want to want to take away the rights of such a large number of women

I can't help but be reminded of Prohibition and how the Xians forced their will on normal people by getting the Constitution itself changed

openeyes

August 18, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by phil
There are always radical people out there, but that tells nothing of the morality of a subject.

Why do people get abortions? Because they can't afford a kid, because they don't want a kid, because they don't want to get caught, becuase they don't want the responsibility of raising a child?

So selfish. Abortion is taking away someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just so someone else can be comfortable. Come on, people on death row get more respect than the unborn.

If there is any reason the person does not want a child, they can have the baby and have it adopted. What is wrong with doing that? Is that not a better alternative?

-phil Let me guess. You're young and male.

I'm astounded that so many RtL's think that just carrying the pregnancy to term and giving up the baby is such a handy solution. As others have pointed out, late pregnancy and birthing take a toll on a woman's body, even if there's no danger of death. Our hormones prime us for caring for this baby we've delivered--you just don't walk away without a thought, especially when you know a child of yours is in the world growing up someplace without you.

After reading up on neurobiology and how it relates to consciousness, I think we need much more than a certain DNA combination, even if has potential, to constitute a human life. I mean, for one, how many people visit the frozen embryoes that fertility-challenged couples have stored for possible future use? No one really thinks that a bunch of people are being warehoused, do they?

If you think a clump of cells that will likely grow into a human should be awarded the same rights as a human, but I don't and it's my clump of cells, why do you get to decide what I can do? Don't have an abortion if that's what you think, or if you're male, be sure you have discussed with your partner before sex what the course of action will be if a pregnancy occurs and that she agrees. Just allow others who think differently to have access to termination since it's certainly a reasonable belief to not think the formation involved in an early pregnancy is a person.

One could argue that bringing a child into the world that you're not prepared to care for is a selfishness of a sort (unless you give it up for adoption, but I've already mentioned how difficult that is which is why not too many woman seem to choose it.)

(BTW, for those who haven't participated in earlier threads, I have not given up a child or had an intentional abortion. I did have a spontaneous "abortion" at 11 weeks and have two children. I don't believe I lost a "child" when I had the miscarriage, and society did not treat the event as such.)

As far as "Well I might not be here if abortion was allowed when my mother was pregnant" argument. Well, I probably wouldn't be here if mothers were encouraged to breast feed more back in the late 50's. I was born 12 months after my parents' first child. Now I know breastfeeding isn't a reliable method of birth control, but it's unlikely my mom would've gotten pregnant within 3 months of delivering my brother had she nursed him. Nevertheless, I'm still a hearty proponent of breast-feeding babies.

And just because I support a woman's right to choose what to do with an unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean that I'm all for unfettered sexual activity. I just don't think concluding that a human exists at the point of conception and therefore must be protected is going to make people more responsible about their sex lives or that anyone benefits from forcing the woman to bear a child.

To answer the question in the OP, I think part of the reason people get out to oppose abortion is that it's certainly a lot easier to profess care for these potential people than it is to help with the ones who already exist. It's an easy way to feel in control and pious.

Alonzo Fyfe

August 19, 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Why do you think this is dominant and the largest motivational force? Are you just guessing because you feel some fear, then applying how you feel to others? Do you have some data that claims that this is the largest motivational force for people who are against abortion?

Like all theories, a hypothesis based on observation.

The motivating factor cannot be to stand in opposition to that which is condemnded in the bible, because of a number of counter-examples. Usery (defined as lending money to people in the same country at interest) is condemned in the bible, yet we do not see these protestors protesting in front of banks and harrassing their customers.

In addition to a commandment against killing, there is a commandment against working on the sabbath. Yet, these protestors do not pick businesses open on Saturday (or is it Sunday?) to protest and harrass THEIR customers.

And the bible contains no element that says "protest abortion clinics, but not banks and businesses open on the sabbath."

These provide extremely strong evidence that "condemned by the bible" is not their true motivation, and that it must lie elsewhere.

Is it "a desire to control women?" Well, many people opposed to abortion ARE women, so "a desire to control women" has a significant weakness. Like the theory that says that the earth is the center of the universe, the "desire to control women" theory will have to add all sorts of epicycles, complexities, neurosi, and dementia in order to fit the observation that many opposed to abortion are women.

"It could have been me" theory explains the target of those opposed to abortion better than the "opposed by the bible" theory. It explains the gender composition of anti-abortion opponents better than the "desire to control women" theory.

"Concerned for the living" theory? This does not explain the adoption of the view that a lump of cells is an independent person. It does not answer the question. Instead, it begs the question. Even then, it supports only the most extreme anti-abortion view that prohibits abortion even in the case of incest and rape. A view that supports only the most extreme anti-abortion stance cannot be the dominant view.

"Fear of death"? I don't see the connection -- except in the form of "fear of having never been alive." Which is the theory that I think has the most merit.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 11:05 AM

WJ: All I have to say to pro-lifers about contraception is this: "If contraception = sin, why is the rhythm method OK?"

Was there a pro-lifer on this thread who was anti-birth control? If so, I missed it. FYI, not all pro-lifers are religious. Take me for example, I�m an atheist. And I'm about as pro-birth control and pro-sex education as you can get.

Biff: That's pretty hard to believe.

Then find stats that say otherwise.

Biff: It's also pretty hard to believe that you can be so callus as to want to want to take away the rights of such a large number of women.

It's pretty hard to believe that you feel so callously about death of 43 million babies -- so I guess we 're even.

Theli: Sperm will given the right conditions grow into a human also, does that mean that masturbation is murder?

Don't be silly. What are those "right" conditions, Theli? Conception, yes? A pile of sperm will never become a human under any conditions unless it fertilizes an egg. I encourage everyone to masturbate their hearts out. I�m all for it.

AF: "Concerned for the living" theory? This does not explain the adoption of the view that a lump of cells is an independent person.

"Fear of death"? I don't see the connection -- except in the form of "fear of having never been alive." Which is the theory that I think has the most merit.

And I think you're wrong. My theory would be that most people who identify themselves as "pro-life" (according to recent polls that is more than 45% of the population) feel compassion for other living human beings (i.e.; babies). My hypothesis comes from interacting with many others who are "pro-life" (observation), therefore, I guess my theory is as valid as yours. :rolleyes: Personally, I�d prefer harder data to support either theory.

Openeyes: To answer the question in the OP, I think part of the reason people get out to oppose abortion is that it's certainly a lot easier to profess care for these potential people than it is to help with the ones who already exist. It's an easy way to feel in control and pious.

It saddens me that all the pro-choice people assume such horrible, fearful, selfish, obnoxious motivations of the pro-life people. I don't think I've seen a pro-choice post here that postulated a motivation that was otherwise. IPU forbid I just feel empathy for aborted human babies as well as uncertainty for when personhood should/does begin. All the attendant questions aside (and there are alot of them), that is what concerns me most. When is a person a person? Who decides? Is it ethical to say a third-trimester fetus has more rights than a second-trimester fetus? Are these artificial lines drawn solely for our own convenience? Is that ethical?

This feels just like when I'm in a group Christians who think I am clearly a defective, horrible person for not believing in a fairy tale god. Kinda makes me sick.

Michelle

phil

August 19, 2003, 11:35 AM

While better health care makes pregnancy and childbirth much safer here than in developing countries, it can still cause serious problems, especially for teens.
Which is why teens shouldn't be having sex.

No we don't. If we make our best good faith effort to avoid pregnancy, there's no reason for punishment.
Really? So if you work hard not to get caught speeding you shouldn't get a ticket? For every action there is a responsibility.

I don't believe that one can characterize the abortion of a lump of cells as punishment to those cells, just as I don't consider clipping my fingernails to be punishment of my fingernails.
Abortion advocates often say, "A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her own body." That is true, however, the fetus is not her. After fertilization and the cell starts replicating, the DNA of the cells is neither completely the mother's or the father's.

If you had to convince a computer that some cells you took from the embryo were you the computer would not be convinced. All you could prove was that you were the mother. For all the computer knows, the baby could've already been born and the DNA could have come from a skin or hair sample.

The 'clump of cells' is not your own body. It is the body of another human, and you do not have the right to control that. Even if you don't think it is somehow 'not fully human' it is not like a toenail that you can just clip off, it is not yours.

You said its about control, and you are right. Abortion advocates want people to have the right to be judge, jury and executioner of their babies.

Our hormones prime us for caring for this baby we've delivered--you just don't walk away without a thought, especially when you know a child of yours is in the world growing up someplace without you.
So you kill the baby before you care for it?

-phil

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by phil

Really? So if you work hard not to get caught speeding you shouldn't get a ticket? For every action there is a responsibility.

No, if you work hard at not speeding, you shouldn't get a ticket. Working to avoid pregnancy and working to avoid speeding are the same, because driving and sex are the "dangerous acts" in the example. Speeding would be analogous to not using protection: irresponsible.
Originally posted by phil

Abortion advocates often say, "A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her own body." That is true, however, the fetus is not her. After fertilization and the cell starts replicating, the DNA of the cells is neither completely the mother's or the father's....

-phil It's the woman's body that is being fed off of to support that fetus, though, and she has a right to decide whether or not she wants her body subjected to that kind of abuse, particularly if hse has either taken precautions or not been educated about sex.

phil

August 19, 2003, 12:11 PM

It's the woman's body that is being fed off of to support that fetus, though, and she has a right to decide whether or not she wants her body subjected to that kind of abuse, particularly if hse has either taken precautions or not been educated about sex.
Yes, my point exactly. The woman is giving shelter for the baby till it can live in the outside world.

Your line of reasoning is faulty though. After the baby is born either one or both of the parents work to support both themselves and the child. According to your line of reasoning, the parents should have the right to abort a child if they decide the child is not worth the time, energy, and money. After all should the parents' bodies, minds and wallets be subjected to that kind of abuse?

It would be a scary world if we lived out that kind of philosophy to its logical conclusions.

-phil

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 12:34 PM

Aboslutely not. Once you have a child, you have accepted the responsibility. Or if you don't, you give them up for adoption, or even disown them. When it is a fetus, you abort it. A child isn't an accident, because you had 9 months (or maybe only 6) to decide whether to have it. If you went the 9 months and had the baby, you chose to take responsibility for that child being born, though still have the option to decide whether to take further responsibility for that child's life. The difference is, you would be making it harder to give up a clump of cells than an actual child! You are pretty much giving more rights to the clump of cells than to the child or the mother, as you are forcing the mother to give the accident shelter and resources, whereas a mother can choose not to do that for an actual post-birth child! How backwards!

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 12:44 PM

Cheetah: It's the woman's body that is being fed off of to support that fetus, though, and she has a right to decide whether or not she wants her body subjected to that kind of abuse, particularly if hse has either taken precautions or not been educated about sex.

Women already don't have a right to completely control their own bodies. After the third trimester, most abortions are, in fact, illegal. And there is widespread support for that law. Why is that? It is STILL the woman's body, right? Shouldn't women have control over their bodies at all times? But if a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, if she changes her mind for WHATEVER reason, most states basically say "too bad, you HAVE to carry the fetus to term" (unless the mother's life is gravely threatened).

So consider this scenario:

A married couple becomes unexpectedly pregnant (well, the woman does anyways). Their marriage has become rocky, with both of them feeling unhappy, but the wife hopes that having a child will actually help them -- give them a focus, bring them together through the joys of parenthood, etc. She does not want to quit her marriage, she wants it to get better, she wants to have a family and be happy. The man hopes so too, but only a little, and deep inside he starts to see a future he doesn't really like or want. He has been having an affair on the side and continues to do so. As the pregnancy progresses he becomes less and less happy with both his wife (who is becoming more and more unsexy and cranky to him with every passing day) and the way his life is going to change. The man suddenly feels trapped and wants out. In the sixth month of pregnancy he tells his wife he is leaving her and wants a divorce. He was the sole provider and will be taking his good salary with him. The wife, who hasn't worked in a while, is suddenly faced with raising a child on her own and finding a job. Yes, she'll get some support from the ex, but her whole vision of her future changes -- and being a divorced single mother is NOT what she wants. She doesn't want to have this schmuck's child either and feels nothing but anger at everyone: the ex, the other woman, and the baby that suddenly seems like a terribly unfair burden. She feels penalized through no fault of her own. She wants it all over with -- she wants an abortion. And she is furious that the state prohibits her from having one. It is HER body, it should be HER choice. She did nothing wrong, it should be her decision! The state should not be allowed to force her to remain pregnant for one minute.

Who do you agree with in this circumstance? Should the woman be allowed to seek an abortion or does the state have a right to protect the rights of the infant?

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Women already don't have a right to completely control their own bodies. After the third trimester, most abortions are, in fact, illegal. And there is widespread support for that law. Why is that? It is STILL the woman's body, right? Shouldn't women have control over their bodies at all times? But if a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, if she changes her mind for WHATEVER reason, most states basically say "too bad, you HAVE to carry the fetus to term" (unless the mother's life is gravely threatened). I personally do not agree with this viewpoint of the majority. Not that it matters, but I don't. I think the woman's rights always supercede the infants rights unless and until she can get rid of it in a different way (adoption). i.e. it would be bad to abort a child (infanticide) because adoption is another, immediate, option. I recognize most people don't feel this way because of the inceasing complexity of the fetus. In addition, I still think the second trimester rule is "fair" to women in that they should be able to decide within 6 months whether or not they want to accept having a child.
Originally posted by TheBigZoo

So consider this scenario:

A married couple becomes unexpectedly pregnant (well, the woman does anyways). Their marriage has become rocky, with both of them feeling unhappy, but the wife hopes that having a child will actually help them -- give them a focus, bring them together through the joys of parenthood, etc. She does not want to quit her marriage, she wants it to get better, she wants to have a family and be happy. The man hopes so too, but only a little, and deep inside he starts to see a future he doesn't really like or want. He has been having an affair on the side and continues to do so. As the pregnancy progresses he becomes less and less happy with both his wife (who is becoming more and more unsexy and cranky to him with every passing day) and the way his life is going to change. The man suddenly feels trapped and wants out. In the sixth month of pregnancy he tells his wife he is leaving her and wants a divorce. He was the sole provider and will be taking his good salary with him. The wife, who hasn't worked in a while, is suddenly faced with raising a child on her own and finding a job. Yes, she'll get some support from the ex, but her whole vision of her future changes -- and being a divorced single mother is NOT what she wants. She doesn't want to have this schmuck's child either and feels nothing but anger at everyone: the ex, the other woman, and the baby that suddenly seems like a terribly unfair burden. She feels penalized through no fault of her own. She wants it all over with -- she wants an abortion. And she is furious that the state prohibits her from having one. It is HER body, it should be HER choice. She did nothing wrong, it should be her decision! The state should not be allowed to force her to remain pregnant for one minute.

Who do you agree with in this circumstance? Should the woman be allowed to seek an abortion or does the state have a right to protect the rights of the infant?

This is an unusual scenario, in that the woman had her 6 months to decide, but the situation changed thereafter. First, this situation is probably very rare, so that I do not believe it should be a basis for public policy. I would also like to point out that she and the husband are faulted for not seeking marriage counseling and using a baby as marriage counseling instead. Highly unsuccessful in real life. (BTW, you don't happen to be reading a book called Le Divorce right now? I am and that's what it's about, generally. the woman's husband cheats on her and leaves her while she is pregnant. She considers abortion, but ultimately decides against it. or at least I think so, still have a few pages elft, but she's due any day now. Anyway, he also left her earlier than 6 months, but it was a strange coincidence in scenarios). People need to be a little more mature in makign their decisions, and I cannot feel too sorry for her, given her motivations, or for him, given his. As I've said above, I believe women should have access to abortions throughout gestation, but since that is not the law, the woman will have to live with it and give it up after it's born if she chooses. She trapped her own self into that pregnancy, unfortunately. Of course, she could always get a "back alley" abortion or attempt to miscarry, which is probably not advisable. The woman has this time to consider whether the accident will come to fruition and it is her choice because it is feeding off and damaging her body. It's not a person until it is born and therefore it's right should not supercede hers. Remember I am coming from the much more common point of view that the pregnancy is accidental, so I don't think a fairly quick decision on her part is unfair to ask for, and can certainly live with the 2nd trimester rule.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 12:58 PM

Cheetah,

You might have already answered my question. Can I infer from your post that you believe that a fetus isn't (or shouldn�t be) a person with independent rights until the very moment it is born? Until that very moment, a fetus (which has measurable brain activity) is just a clump of cells and therefore lives and becomes a person or dies and becomes an ejected bunch of cells soley at the whim of the mother.

I just can�t bring myself to believe that this approach is ethical.

Amen-Moses

August 19, 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Who do you agree with in this circumstance? Should the woman be allowed to seek an abortion or does the state have a right to protect the rights of the infant?

What infant? It isn't an infant until it is born.

The reasoning behind the 3rd trimester rule is that such abortions are extremely dangerous and unless continuing on to the birth represents a threat to the mothers life it is preferable to continue the pregnancy until such point that delivery can be stimulated.

She can still have the baby adopted if she wishes to.

Amen-Moses

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 01:08 PM

Cheetah -- I think we were posting at the same time. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I do think that it is a bad idea to bring the concept of blame into the question, as in:

People need to be a little more mature in makign their decisions, and I cannot feel too sorry for her, given her motivations, or for him, given his.

She trapped her own self into that pregnancy, unfortunately.

I could easily have provided a scenario where the woman was completely "blameless" - and there could still be a reason to wish to abort at a late date. Whether or not she should be allowed to abort or not should not be dependent, in my mind, on whether she made some "bad" choices in the past. I think I'm rambling now, I'm just sorting out concepts and thoughts.... so I'll stop now.

Thanks for yor ideas,

Michelle

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo

I could easily have provided a scenario where the woman was completely "blameless" - and there could still be a reason to wish to abort at a late date. Whether or not she should be allowed to abort or not should not be dependent, in my mind, on whether she made some "bad" choices in the past. I think I'm rambling now, I'm just sorting out concepts and thoughts.... so I'll stop now.

Of course, and I still don't think public policy should be made based on these rare cases. I am still behind current public policy as generally reasonable and I am still behind the idea that women should have the choice about what is inside their bodies as much as possible.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 01:39 PM

AM: What infant? It isn't an infant until it is born.

I'm sorry, I misspoke, I should have said "fetus".

In regards to the third trimester rule -- you are saying the rule has to do solely with the safety and continued health of the mother? That the viability of the fetus has no bearing on that being the cut-off point?

That is not my understanding.

The ruling in Roe spoke directly to the viability of the fetus, saying something to the effect of when a fetus is capable of meaningful life outside the mother's womb that the state's interest in the potentiality of human life becomes compelling. It is at that point that the state may regulate and/or proscribe abortion (except where the mother's health and life were threatened).

I was looking for some links on the exact wording and came across this on the pro-choice NOW site:

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that abortion is a protected right prior to viability and that women's health must be protected after viability.

In all the data I'm finding, it seems "viability" of the fetus did and does play a role in the "reasoning" of the trimester system. I'd be interested in seeing data that says this cutoff point was devised for the woman's health (due to the dangerousness of abortions past this point).

Thanks,

Michelle

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 01:52 PM

Cheetah: Of course, and I still don't think public policy should be made based on these rare cases.

Me neither, that isn't where I was going. :) I was using the scenario to point out that no matter how compelling the idea is that a woman should always have complete control over their own bodies and no matter how empathetic one might be with a woman in a situation such as I described, we as a society have decided that the woman's rights are not primary when a fetus becomes "viable". That the fetus' right to life outweighs the woman's right to exclusive control her own body.

Of course, this could all change if society changes its mind.

Anyways, the reason this captures my attention is this: with advancing medical technology, what happens when a fetus becomes viable even earlier than the third trimester? Will rights then be applied to ever younger fetuses as technology advances? Should it?

Michelle

Edited because I type for shit.

scigirl

August 19, 2003, 02:03 PM

Just wondering if the fact that there are already a lot of children awaiting adoption would factor into anyone's moral code regarding abortion.

scigirl

Alonzo Fyfe

August 19, 2003, 02:05 PM

The impermissibility of late-term abortions actually needs to have little to do with viability and other arbitrary measures.

Rather, it can be built on the idea of implied consent. A woman who does not have an abortion when she discovers she is pregnant thereby gives consent to the fetus to the use of her body.

It is a standard concept applied elsewhere in law where, for example, refusal to protect a copyright on a name could mean the loss of the name -- or refusal to stop a neighbor from using a piece of property generates a 'reasonable expectation' that he can continue to use the property and, thus, counts as giving the neighbor consent.

The woman has a right to deny consent to the use of her body, but does not have a right to have the fetus killed.

Yet, on the other side of the consent argument, the issue of consent gives the woman the right to have the fetus extracted from her body, but not a right to have the fetus killed. If it is possible to end the use of the fetus' body without ending the fetus' life, then the consent argument does not provide any argument in favor of the "end the life" option.

As technology develops, at some point, we will be able to provide artificial wombs to those fetuses extracted from the mother. And, in fact, we will some day reach the point where the more controlled environment in an artificial womb is safer than development in a natural womb. At this point, it may be even considered unethical (a form of child endangerment) to subject a child to the risks of natural development.

But these options do not exist today. Nor do they have any relevance to what we may permissibly do today.

If I could fly, I might have an obligation to save a child from a burning building. But this does not imply that I have such an obligation in the real world where I cannot fly -- and can only enter the building at extreme risk to myself.

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo

Anyways, the reason this captures my attention is this: with advancing medical technology, what happens when a fetus becomes viable even earlier than the third trimester? Will rights then be applied to ever younger fetuses as technology advances? Should it?

Michelle

I should hope not. It would be horrible that a woman should be forced to know she has a child in the world, or take care of that child, because of an accident (again as most abortions are) and not have a chance even for a couple of months to choose to get rid of it. My earnest hope is that sex education becomes more accepted, common and thorough (as I've said before, a reason why I don't believe ardent pro-lifers are saving babies: because they don't put their resources toward preventing unplanned pregnancy and therefore abortion in the first place!) and we can reduce the need for abortion, the horrible instance of people finding out that they are pregnancy accidentally and do not want it.

If the above happened, people would essentially be required to have sex only for procreative purposes, since recreational sex could result in a baby. Actually, I'd predict you'd get a lot more back-alley abortions and self-inflicted miscarriages. Sex is not only for procreation and we should not pretend that it is ok to force procreation from recreational sex.

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by scigirl
Just wondering if the fact that there are already a lot of children awaiting adoption would factor into anyone's moral code regarding abortion.

scigirl

Absolutely! I have said this many times on abortion debates and no one seems to care. Adoption is not a good answer! It just adds to the idea that ardent pro-lifers care only about lives *in* the womb and if we all want to have any rights or protections, we ought to crawl back in, because outside of the womb, most of them (particularly conservative religious ones) couldn't give a damn about ya! I think that any pro-lifer that says a woman should give a baby up for adoption ought to be required to adopt babies in the same proportion to the number of times they say it. It is a simplistic answer that they would not like so much if it affected them. But, nobody sees the kids in foster homes and on lists. out of sight, out of mind.

Hedwig

August 19, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by phil
Which is why teens shouldn't be having sex.

-phil

Good luck with that, phil.

Alonzo Fyfe

August 19, 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by scigirl
Just wondering if the fact that there are already a lot of children awaiting adoption would factor into anyone's moral code regarding abortion.

scigirl

Absolutely NOT!

The argument begs the question as to the permissibility of abortion. We have to assume that abortion is permissible for other reasons for the number of adopted children to be relevant. Because, if we deny that abortion is permissible for other reasons we get a clearly invalid moral inference.

Let us assume, for example, that abortion is not permissible for other reasons -- that abortion is wrong. But, the argument would have us say, because these other adoptable children exists, abortion becomes permissible by reason of the existence of a certain number of adoptable children.

If this were a valid inference, then this would not only make abortion permissible, it would be permissible to kill any child on the basis of the fact that a certain number of adoptable children already exist.

"Oh, too bad, Jamie's parents died in an airplane crash and there is nobody else to raise him. But we already have 100,000 adoptable children. This makes it 100,001. Obviously, we get to kill one of them."

No?

Unless it is permissible to kill that child for some other reason, it is not permissible to kill him for the reason that 100,000 adoptable children already exist.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 03:48 PM

Scigirl: Just wondering if the fact that there are already a lot of children awaiting adoption would factor into anyone's moral code regarding abortion.

For me, no it doesn't. It has nothing to do with whether a fetus deserves the same rights as a newborn.

I'm not saying it isn't a valid issue. And of course I see where you are going with it in regards to adoption being the alternative choice to abortion. And yes Cheetah I *do* care. But ethically I just can't see how that fact affects whether or not a fetus fundamentally deserves rights.

But the question brings to mind the morality of having babies at all when there are children waiting for adoption. Is it immoral to choose to have a baby (or multiple babies) of one's own when there are parentless children in the world? Maybe if people stopped getting deliberately pregnant there would be no child without a parent -- all accidentally born children would have a willing adoptive parent ready and waiting. Problem solved! :p

Cheetah: I think that any pro-lifer that says a woman should give a baby up for adoption ought to be required to adopt babies in the same proportion to the number of times they say it.

How very clever. How many adoptive children do you have, Cheetah? Or does your pro-abortion stance automatically absolve you of caring about these poor parentless children. I see.

AF: The impermissibility of late-term abortions actually needs to have little to do with viability and other arbitrary measures.

Rather, it can be built on the idea of implied consent. A woman who does not have an abortion when she discovers she is pregnant thereby gives consent to the fetus to the use of her body.

Sure, you could make any ill-defined rule you like, if you can get a majority of people to agree. But I mean, what does the second part of that quote mean: "when she discovers she is pregnant". Does she get 15 minutes to withdraw consent? One month, three months, nine months? You would still have to draw an arbitrary line to prevent "late-term abortions". What would you base that line on? Some amount of time YOU think is reasonable for a woman to have made up her mind?

In regards to late-term abortion, I personally think fetal viability rightly has everything to do with it.

And as far as your "flying" analogy, I don't know where you're going with that. It is to be criticized to think ahead -- and perhaps not that very far ahead at all? I imagine all sorts of medical ethicists might disagree with you as we approach the ability to genetically engineer and clone.

abe smith

August 19, 2003, 03:49 PM

" Teens shouldn't be having sex". Hey hey... the allegedly-virgin Mary was about 12, 13 years old; and she assented! and she was one of a community --- well, you can read about it , the rules in the OT.

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo

How very clever. How many adoptive children do you have, Cheetah? Or does your pro-abortion stance automatically absolve you of caring about these poor parentless children. I see.

It does, because I am not the hypocrite that claims every child deserves a life, then abandons them to the dregs of society. Do pro-lifers care only about quantity over quality? Not that I am to judge quality, but it would seem they do not care about quality, as a few years later, you'll hear those same pro-lifers (conservative) jawing about how that lazy motherfucker better get himself a job and stop living off welfare. Hmmm, they cared a lot more about him when he was in the womb. And if they care so much about life that they would force that child to eb born, they should eb the ones to take care of that life.

Why would I have adoptive children? I don't care to adopt and I am not hypocritically stating that all fetuses should live, thereby implicitly stating that the adoptive population ought to be increased. If they are going to increase the adoptive population by their actions, they ought to have to help mitigate it. I'm not kidding. I really think people should be held accountable for the things they do knowingly, like this, particularly when they oppose sex education.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 03:54 PM

AF: Absolutely NOT!

No way. You made a post I agreed with. I even understood it completely. Wow. :eek:

:D

Michelle

P.S. I know, the reverse isn't true. Oh well, it's tough being a minority opinion.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 04:07 PM

Cheetah: It does, because I am not the hypocrite that claims every child deserves a life, then abandons them to the dregs of society.

Why would I have adoptive children? I don't care to adopt.... <snip>a whole lot of worthless generalizations</snip>

I see. Well, from your heartwarming statement I can infer that pro-abortion folks aren't hypocrites -- they're just uncaring, unfeeling, selfish sub-humans who feel no obligation to their fellow human beings. Screw all those parentless kids who failed to get themselves aborted, right?

Hmmm, maybe pro-abortion folks could show their softer side and just adopt war orphans. I mean, that wouldn't imply any agreement with pro-life folks (war orphans weren't abortion escapees, so they deserve some compassion), it would just demonstrate some basic human decency.

I guess I'd better prepare my spare room as I don't have the "pro-abortion get out of adoption free" card. Do not pass go and do not collect a hundred dollars.

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I see. Well, from your heartwarming statement I can infer that pro-abortion folks aren't hypocrites -- they're just uncaring, unfeeling, selfish sub-humans who feel no obligation to their fellow human beings. Screw all those parentless kids who failed to get themselves aborted, right?

Hmmm, maybe pro-abortion folks could show their softer side and just adopt war orphans. I mean, that wouldn't imply any agreement with pro-life folks (war orphans weren't abortion escapees, so they deserve some compassion), it would just demonstrate some basic human decency.

I guess I'd better prepare my spare room as I don't have the "pro-abortion get out of adoption free" card. Do not pass go and do not collect a hundred dollars.

True, I am not heartwarming. If you want to talk about selfishness, though, there's a thread on the benefits of it right now. I am selfish in certain ways, but I hardly see how my stance on the abortion/adoption question benefits me (the definition of selfishness) to the exclusion of others.

And yes, you should prepare your spare room if you want to avoid being a hypocrite, and think adoption is a good solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Then, you'll actually be making a connection between your actions and your words.

Just because I'm not nice doesn't make my opinion invalid. Niceness does not a successful argument make.

openeyes

August 19, 2003, 04:19 PM

Openeyes: To answer the question in the OP, I think part of the reason people get out to oppose abortion is that it's certainly a lot easier to profess care for these potential people than it is to help with the ones who already exist. It's an easy way to feel in control and pious. Michelle: It saddens me that all the pro-choice people assume such horrible, fearful, selfish, obnoxious motivations of the pro-life people. I don't think I've seen a pro-choice post here that postulated a motivation that was otherwise.

Notice I said "part" of the reason. I'm not saying it's true of every anti-abortion person, but I do think it is motivation for some. I noticed you said "all". Who is doing the generalizing?

I also think there are some "pro-life" people who may not be religious but are still influenced by the religious point of view that life begins at the moment of the DNA merge (though pregnancy doesn't officially begin until implantation), partially because of the "ensoulment" idea. This point of view isn't necessarily practical or correct.

We humans don't really need all the fertility that we've developed over the eons with the decrease in infant mortality and the added demands on the earth's resources due to the increasing human population. This decrease need for offspring hasn't decrease the human sex drive overall. We have ways to prevent conception, but they aren't fool proof. Responsible parenthood, in my view, is more important to the well-being of society than to award equal rights to fetuses that are non-viable.

TACurtis

August 19, 2003, 05:11 PM

I voted "Desire for Control," not because they want to control others, necessarily, but because they are driven by insecurity over the nature of their own existence.

Accepting the absurdity of religion and religious teaching -- which is the root of the "pro-life" conviction -- gives them the illusion of control over what is, at least for the time being, completely unknowable to humankind.

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 05:17 PM

Cheetah: True, True, I am not heartwarming blah blah blah.

I was being sarcastic and making stupid broad generalizations to make a point. I can see that doing so was, in fact, pointless.

And yes, you should prepare your spare room if you want to avoid being a hypocrite, blah blah blah.

Yes, adoption is a possible solution to some unwanted pregnancies. And I connect my actions with my words by supporting early sex education and easily available birth control. So I think I'll leave my spare room "as is".

Bad Kitty

August 19, 2003, 05:37 PM

openeyes: Notice I said "part" of the reason. I'm not saying it's true of every anti-abortion person, but I do think it is motivation for some. I noticed you said "all". Who is doing the generalizing?

I wasn't generalizing. Of ALL of the pro-abortion posts that replied in the thread, I didn't remember a single non-offensive motivation postulated. I was referring to this thread, not the world in general.

Though on review, I see I did err in this. There were a couple of early posts saying that the motivation could be a difference of opinion on what constitutes life. I was only thinking of the later posts when I wrote this, and it did sadden me that there seemed to be such a negative overall opinion of people who were pro-life.

Excuses aside, I did generalize. My bad.

I also think there are some "pro-life" people who may not be religious but are still influenced by the religious point of view that life begins at the moment of the DNA merge (though pregnancy doesn't officially begin until implantation), partially because of the "ensoulment" idea.

Probably there are some who believe this. The idea of a "soul" seems very popular in our general culture -- even with very weak theists of generally unexamined faith. As an atheist, I don't not fall into this category however. I'm not interested in "ensoulment", I'm interested in personhood under the law and how that is defined and applied.

Responsible parenthood, in my view, is more important to the well-being of society than to award equal rights to fetuses that are non-viable.

Responible parethood and responsible sexual practices are certainly key, in my opinion. But I'm just not personally convinced of the ethics of denying a a fetus the right to live. So I will agree to disagree on this one.

Michelle

cheetah

August 19, 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I was being sarcastic and making stupid broad generalizations to make a point. I can see that doing so was, in fact, pointless.
I fail to see your point in doing so. Was it just to prove you can come up with those broad generalizations? They held no parallel to the statements I made, so I cannot assume you were trying to show them to be false. In fact, you ended up being correct in that I don't make these decisions/opinions with my emotions!

Also, it is more appropriate for you to change someone's quote by using ellipses, rather than saying blah blah blah. It is inappropriate for you to change my quote to insert words I didn't use. if you want to cut short some text you do not intend to use or respond to, use ellipses. If you want to insinuate that what i am saying is repetitive or "in one ear out the other" or any number of other things, you ought to use the blah blah blah in your own words, not mine. Just a little quoting etiquette!

winstonjen

August 20, 2003, 05:20 AM

When I said that pro-lifers only care about being seen as morally correct, one Christian fundy took offence and said, "Why must you resort to insulting other users [How? - Ed]? Just because they oppose it doesn't mean they care about being seen as 'morally correct' - they think that it would be dangerous fpr society's morals if it is legalised."

Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between the two reasons he mentioned? :confused:

Bad Kitty

August 20, 2003, 07:27 AM

Cheetah: I fail to see your point in doing so.
Color me not shocked, given that you can't recognize the broad generalizations you made here:

It does, because I am not the hypocrite that claims every child deserves a life, then abandons them to the dregs of society. Do pro-lifers care only about quantity over quality? Not that I am to judge quality, but it would seem they do not care about quality, as a few years later, you'll hear those same pro-lifers (conservative) jawing about how that lazy motherfucker better get himself a job and stop living off welfare. Hmmm, they cared a lot more about him when he was in the womb. And if they care so much about life that they would force that child to eb born, they should eb the ones to take care of that life.

Cheetah: Just a little quoting etiquette!
Just because I displayed bad manners doesn't make my opinion invalid. Proper etiquette does not a successful argument make.

Bad Kitty

August 20, 2003, 08:06 AM

Winstonjen: When I said that pro-lifers only care about being seen as morally correct, one Christian fundy took offence and said, "Why must you resort to insulting other users [How? - Ed]? Just because they oppose it doesn't mean they care about being seen as 'morally correct' - they think that it would be dangerous fpr society's morals if it is legalised."

Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between the two reasons he mentioned?
Well, looking in the mind of a fundy is never easy, but I do see a difference.

[list=1]
Your statement gives the movitivation of a pro-lifer as, "only care about being seen as morally correct". This infers that it really isn't the abortion issue they care about, it is ONLY their image and how they are perceived that they care about. This is probably pretty insulting to someone who truly cares about the actual issue and it's possible impact on society (like the undervaluation of children and life in general).

His statement post