|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 125 of 216:
| 
Oct 12 11:13 UTC 2000 |
Here's the abortion quiz again, in case anyone forgot it in all the
drift.
Do you think the following situations a) are okay and b) should be
legal:
1. A rich yuppie couple have two daughters, and now they want a son.
On learning that the fe-yuppie is pregnant again, they have her tested
and find out that the child will be another girl, so they decide to
abort.
2. A white woman learns that she is pregnant. She knows that the
father is black and she doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of her
friends and family by giving birth to a black child, so she decides to
abort.
3. The young widow of an elderly billionaire is pregnant with the child
they conceived before he died of old age. She knows that under the
terms of his will the child will get everything, but if there is no
child then she gets everything, so she decides to abort.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 126 of 216:
|
Oct 12 11:13 UTC 2000 |
MANY (IF NOT MOST) PRO-LIFERS RESPECT THAT PRO-CHOICERS HAVE VALID OPINIONS
ABOUT ABORTION.
your fingers are in your ears, Jerry. I have yet to say that pro-lifers
respect anybody's right to have an abortion.
yeah, ok. pro-choicers have "valid opinions" but they "don't respect
anybody's right to have an abortion"
|
brighn
|
|
response 127 of 216:
|
Oct 12 13:19 UTC 2000 |
#123> Rane, get of it. You're talking yourself even deeper into the hole. Just
leave it be.
Besides, you HAVE judged other people's morality. You've questioned the
appropriateness of judging other people's morality. Since I feel it's moral
to judge other people's morality, you're judging MY morality.
#126> I have yet to say that pro-lifers respect anybody's right to have an
abortion. Now you're just echoing what I say as if I hadn't said it.
|
ashke
|
|
response 128 of 216:
|
Oct 12 16:45 UTC 2000 |
RE 126: I'm sorry, but could you have found any other biased stupid quiz?
How about this one:
1.) Teenage girl barely in high school gets pregnant. Father will beat her
if he finds out, he's an alcoholic, decides to abort, even though she could
very well love and raise the kid?
2.) Woman is raped while alone and becomes pregnant from the situation, and
for some reason the emergency room didn't give here the morning after pill
or an updated version RU-486, or it didn't work. She is carrying the child
of a man who raped her. She decides to abort.
I could go on, as I am sure you could. The situations are weighted on either
side, and you can come up with so many situations of people not waint children
for whatever reason, and I could come up with whatever reason they can't keep
them either for mental or physical health reasons.
Point being, I'm pro-choice. I don't know what I woudl do. But I don't want
YOU making that decision for me. I don't what someone who will NEVER feel
a child growing in them to make that decision. And for all those men who are
in the HMO buisness, who are sending mothers home the next day, less than 24
hours after having a nautral child birth, or 3 days after having a c-section,
I have a finger and a few words to say to you to.
|
brighn
|
|
response 129 of 216:
|
Oct 12 16:51 UTC 2000 |
I thought the point of the quiz was to explore exactly where people's lines
were. Not even the Republicans would deny 128-2 her abortion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 130 of 216:
|
Oct 12 16:53 UTC 2000 |
Re #124: is that response re #123? I was discussing the hypothetical
situation of #118 in #121 and #123. It's a metahypothetical point, and
obvously I'm not uncomfortable with it.
brighn gets really amusing trying to avoid a discussion where he is asked
to answer questions. I just finish saying that I make personal judgements
of other people's morality for my own use, and brighn says I have
"questioned the appropriateness of judging other people's morality". Can't
he read?
|
jerryr
|
|
response 131 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:10 UTC 2000 |
ok, i have been having trouble lately making myself clear and understanding
what i have read. so, if you permit me, will you answer, brighn, this
set of queries:
do pro-lifers respect pro-choicer's right to choose abortion?
do pro-lifers respect anyone's right to have an abortion?
do pro-lifers respect the fact that others do not believe abortion is murder?
do pro-lifers respect anyone's right to abortion on demand?
|
brighn
|
|
response 132 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:13 UTC 2000 |
I can read fine.
#121> Here we have people discussing other people's "morality", even though
it
is none of our business.
Where did you say that you make personal judgments of other people's morality
for your own use?
Where was I asked questions that I failed to answer?
I would also thank you to address me if you're responding to me.
|
brighn
|
|
response 133 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:29 UTC 2000 |
(jerry slipped in. #312 was obviously for Rane.)
(#132, too)
(I don't know who #312 will be for, if we're to go that high)
(Or if I'll even post it)
Anyway, 131:
First, a disclaimer. I am speaking of "some pro-lifers," as a shortcut for
the logically explicit "there exists a set of individuals who hold a stance
commonly called pro-life with regard to the ethics and law or abortion," and
am not referring to the entire set of individuals who would cal lthemselves
pro-lifers.
"do pro-lifers respect pro-choicer's right to choose abortion?"
-- No. I would say that's an entailment of having a pro-life stance.
"do pro-lifers respect anyone's right to have an abortion?"
-- No. Ditto.
"do pro-lifers respect the fact that others do not believe abortion is
murder?"
-- Now, here's where we need polygon. ;} Let me define murder two ways,
thenanswer each question:
murder: the unlawful taking of life. Clearly anyone would be deluded if they
believed that abortion, in general, is murder in this country.
murder: the unethical taking of life. Yes, I delieve that some pro-lifers
respect the fact that others do not believe abortion is unethical.
(believe)
(dang, my typing's awful today)
"do pro-lifers respect anyone's right to murder-on-demand?"
-- No. How many times will you rephrase that question until you get the point?
Once more, sing it with me:
Respecting that another person has valid arguments is different than setting
law and policy on those issues.
Forget abortion. Let's talk drugs instead. There are those who would keep
drugs legal who still respect the viewpoint that many have that drugs (all
of them) should be legalized. After all, if somebody wants to mess up their
own body, why shouldn't they? If we're going to keep people from doing things
that hurt themselves, why not ban cars? Etc. On the other hand, there are many
good reasons for keeping drugs illegal -- they don't just affect the person,
but other people in their lives; they affect work performance, and could put
customers at risk from faulty goods; they strain the health care system.
So, we, as a society, looked at all the costs and benefits of drug use, and
decided to ban most of them. Alcohol and tobacco, at the time, were too firmly
entrenched in society, and an attempt to ban the former caused much more harm
than good. Every now and then, we as a society revisit the issue and discuss
whether our attitudes, or the cost/benefit ratio, has changed enough to
warrant a rewrite of the laws. Generally, we decide against it.
With abortion, we as a society weighed the costs and benefits of abortion and
decided to allow it.
|
md
|
|
response 134 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:31 UTC 2000 |
128: I don't want to make any decisions at all for you, ashke, least of
all abortion decisions. But practically *anyone* can be pro-choice in
the two situations you describe. If those are the situations you have
to think of to stay pro-choice, then you might be on shakier ground
than you think. You don't want to be like the person who defends free
speech for Democrats but not for pornographers. If you can look at the
three examples I gave and say the people might or might not be scumbags
but you still think the abortions should be legal, then you can call
yourself pro-choice. lowclass and brighn have both said that, so I'll
make it three. Anyone else?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 135 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:43 UTC 2000 |
Re #132: brighn asks 2 questions:
"Where did you say that you make personal judgments of other people's
morality for your own use?"
Ans: #s 121 and 123.
"Where was I asked questions that I failed to answer?"
Ans: where I kept asking "show me" evidence for superstitions.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 136 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:47 UTC 2000 |
re: # 134 Okay... Make it four. I would seriously have personal issues
with the people listed- but I would still think they should legally be
able to have abortions. I could never be friends with them, but then
again, I probably wouldn't have been anyhow for other reasons.
|
brighn
|
|
response 137 of 216:
|
Oct 12 17:58 UTC 2000 |
#135> I told you I didn't have any evidence that you would accept. That's an
answer to your question.
And if you choose to interpret your #121 in that way, so be it. I did not
interpret it that way. You know what you meant, but the rest of us only have
what you say to go by. If you're clarifying it now, so be it, but don't
suggest that it's only me with communication problems.
(In otherwise, in response to "can't brighn read", I ask, "can't rane write?")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 138 of 216:
|
Oct 12 18:07 UTC 2000 |
Shall we hold a vote on whether the sentences in #s 121 and 123 were
clear, or not. ( 8^} - for brighn).
Evidence that defies logic for acceptance is not very good evidence. By
definition, evidence supports logical conclusions. This is not just in
science, but also in law and most thought systems. Illogical "evidence"
is only a hypothesis.
|
brighn
|
|
response 139 of 216:
|
Oct 12 18:25 UTC 2000 |
As I said. I answered your question.
|
ashke
|
|
response 140 of 216:
|
Oct 12 19:34 UTC 2000 |
Maybe I should clarify. I am not pro-choice because I think everyone should
be able to go and have one. And the examples I gave were just as biast to
have people think "Wow, that's a no brainer" just like the other posted
questions were. I looked at them and said, what shallow people, but they can
do what they want with their bodies.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
I give others the right to CHOOSE what THEY will do. And as long as it is
legal, and it is, then they can choose.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 141 of 216:
|
Oct 12 19:35 UTC 2000 |
re: #133 ok, i think i am not getting a handle on this. i guess one could
say with great weight and authority that any one subset of any set believes
one thing or another. i made an error of assumption that we were discussing
generally accepted stances of those that are pro-life or pro-choice.
when words like "valid" and "respect" are used i get further confused. but
it's all clear now. i get the subset thang.
valid (v`l4nd) adjective
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic. a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically
be derived: a valid argument. b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise:
a valid conclusion.
respect (rn-sphkt4) verb, transitive
respected, respecting, respects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with
Excerpted from The American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language
|
mdw
|
|
response 142 of 216:
|
Oct 12 20:26 UTC 2000 |
While people in the "pro-choice" & "anti-abortion" movements would have
you believe it's an either/or situation, the reality is that in history
it has usually been treated somewhere in the middle. In fact, it forms
a continuum, even today, and there are people who occupy every
conceivable niche in that continuum. The distribution of beliefs is
probably actually a bell curve.
At one end of the curve, you can find people who are willing to advocate
infantcide and in fact this procedure is routinely carried out even
today by most american hosipitals in the case of certain major birth
defects (the excuse is "it wouldn't survive anyways", and the method
used is to deny food & water). A bit past this in the continuum, you
will find people who believe 3rd trimester abortions at the mother's
whim is perfectly ok. A bit past this, there are people who believe 1st
trimester abortions should be carried out this way, but 3rd term
abortions should only be done in the case of medical necessity. Then
there are people who believe abortions should be hard to get, and
require increasing amounts of involvement from the father, courts, and
other 3rd parties. Then there are people who believe only a 1st
trimestery abortion is acceptable, and then only in the case of rape,
incest, or medical necessity. And then there are people who believe
abortion is a mortal sin and never justifiable, but if someone else
decides to commit that mortal sin it's not their business to interfer.
And then, at the extreme end, there are people who not only believe it's
their business to interfer, but are willing to heckle people and murder
people.
Historically speaking, a "day after" pill in herbal form has existed at
least since the medieval period, and what they used then was probably
one of the safer and more effective medical treatments then available.
The concept that human life became sacred and worth of protection
sometime after the 1st trimester can be traced back to english common
law in the 1700s, and back before that at least into the early medieval
ages. Since medicine was not a science back then and a scientific
understanding of human conception was not wide-spread, the usual
argument was over when did the "soul" become attached to the body.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 143 of 216:
|
Oct 12 22:13 UTC 2000 |
(Just as a little note...I am seriously impressed with the overall demeanor
of most of the posts in this item. Even though at least 95% of you have a
different stance than I do, I find this discussion to be far more enlightening
and engaging than any abortion item ever on M-Net.)
|
md
|
|
response 144 of 216:
|
Oct 12 22:29 UTC 2000 |
Fake.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 216:
|
Oct 12 23:06 UTC 2000 |
Re #139: you didn't answer my question, you ducked it.
|
senna
|
|
response 146 of 216:
|
Oct 13 06:47 UTC 2000 |
Actually, this is better than anyt other abortion discussions on here, too.
I think part of that is that we're not getting the mindless one stance or
the other arguments which completely eliminate any hope of real discussion.
We're bringing up valid points that both sides can contribute to. It's rather
enjoyable, as these things go.
As a point of correction, not every pro-lifer (though I suspect most of them
do) supports a woman's right to abortion in the case of rape. Some of them
are stupid, remember? :)
|
johnnie
|
|
response 147 of 216:
|
Oct 13 14:06 UTC 2000 |
Some/many pro-lifers don't support abortion in any circumstance,
including rape/incest and saving the life of the mother.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 148 of 216:
|
Oct 13 21:43 UTC 2000 |
I've never understood how unusual circumstances surround the conception
(e.g. rape or incest) were supposed to justify performing an abortion
which would otherwise be morally unacceptable.
I have always been convinced that people who otherwise advocate a ban on
abortion but make an exception for rape or incest are making a tacit
admission that either (a) they recognize that their hard-line values are
too extreme to be accepted by the mainstream and are willing to sacrifice
a few fetuses to soften their message enough to achieve the majority of
their goals, or (b) their reasons for lobbying against abortion are
complicated by factors considerably less pure and more prurient than
simple concern for the life of the "unborn child".
I'm open to the possibility of honest disagreement on many levels when
people are discussing their positions on abortion but rape/incest exemptions
strike me as particularly repugnant examples of politically expedient
hypocrisy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 149 of 216:
|
Oct 13 22:39 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|