I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

decides2dream

scb wrote:

I believe D2D spoke only of abortion being AVAILABLE as an option at all... she didn't say it was the OPTIMAL option, nor has anyone else. The pro-choice position advocates for leaving it up to the pregnant woman to decide which is the OPTIMAL option. It is a NEUTRAL position. Just because someone is not biased AGAINST something does not mean they're biased FOR it. Although, perhaps some people's own bias doesn't allow them to understand that others can be neutral.

scb wrote:

Saying abortion may be the optimal solution in some scenarios and may not be in other scenarios and it's not for someone else to decide, once again, is a NEUTRAL stance.

You can hear whatever messages you want to hear, Angelica, but... what is it you always say?... "your judgments about what I say or don't say, and how you interpret/process that are about you."... "if it's not clear for you there's little I can do"... and "The truth exists on its own whether it is being perceived through the smokescreen of our inner filters or not".


So are you in need of guidance or are you just wearing the ears of other people?

*swoons*




sensibility has that effect on me.....and touches my feminine and masculine sides simultaneously.


what is 'interesting' here...is this supposed bias we all possess....and i will willingly agree we all have personal bias. MY bias to is CHOICE....EVERY damn one of em! it's to support the mothers, and having available ALL the options for them, for THEM to then decide for themselves.....and to support them in whatever choice they make.

the thing with this bias we all have...is that yes, while i acknowledge mine.....it's seems those most focused on this bias, do NOT acknowledge their OWN bias. and that is well, errrrr.....rather biased, and quite lacking in self-awareness.


the other 'interesting' thing here....is i see this pro-abortion idea.....this suggestion as it being presented as the best option, etc. i read all these threads, i have literally never seen abortion ever presented as the only and best option......like there are no other choices to be made. and again, i am not suggesting it is not possible someone somewhere may've said it, i readily admit i do NOT read EVERY post or thread, but i read a LOT, especially on this topic...and i never noticed those posts! of course, that could be my own bias filtering em away for me ....but i think not. beyond that, wtf difference does it make if someone said that, even often? this is a place for sharing information, objectively and not so objectively....opinions are welcome and expected. as long as opinion doesn't get paraded as 'fact'...and sure, i see that happen often enough....but if it isn't....well, it's all well and good. one should always feel free to share their opinions, on every facet they desire....and it is up to those who choose to read such, to infer and/or filter their own discernment. anyhooo....bias...yep, it IS thee...no matter where you look. there isn't just one choice, and i sure as shit do not believe it is up to ANYone else to make the choice, but the woman in the situation. and so it goes......



*late edit, going with the last few posts for the direction of the thread.....


personally, i prefer abortion law being handled on a federal level. i far prefer EVERY woman in this ENTIRE country has access to ALL choices, regardless of what state she may reside. keeping the law at the federal level far better serves the needs of pregnant women and accessing all their available options imo.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

personally, i prefer abortion law being handled on a federal level. i far prefer EVERY woman in this ENTIRE country has access to ALL choices, regardless of what state she may reside. keeping the law at the federal level far better serves the needs of pregnant women and accessing all their available options imo.

I agree with you but it must be done the right way. Roe v. Wade, as much as the pro-choice side may hate to hear this, is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that it's immoral simply unconstitutional and needs to overturned on that basis alone. With out an amendment to our constitution stating that abortion is legal, a woman's right issue, then it MUST be handled on a state by state basis. As I stated earlier we can't allow the federal government to ignore the Constitution simply because we look favorably on the outcome but complain about it when we don't.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I agree with you but it must be done the right way. Roe v. Wade, as much as the pro-choice side may hate to hear this, is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that it's immoral simply unconstitutional and needs to overturned on that basis alone. With out an amendment to our constitution stating that abortion is legal, a woman's right issue, then it MUST be handled on a state by state basis. As I stated earlier we can't allow the federal government to ignore the Constitution simply because we look favorably on the outcome but complain about it when we don't.

well i will be honest and say i don't know enough about it to intelligently debate that...i will leave that to VG when she returns from the democratic convention. for right now, i personally want to continue to see it upheld....b/c if it is reversed, i fear that it will never get back on the proper track. so perhaps what you say needs to be done, but it needs to be done while roe vs. wade stands...and then it can be reversed. and this is all my highly subjective opinion on it. but, i dO hear ya, and your point made. taken and processed....but for me, right now....i stand by my own skewed rationale there for what i perceive the greater good being served until it CAN be addressed properly, legally, federally.


given the fact that the ERA has never been ratified....yea...i just can't face a reversal of roe vs. wade!

catch22

mammasan wrote:

I agree with you, but then you open the door for the federal government to stick it's nose in. So I believe that it should be left up to the state. We can't have the federal government walk all over the constitution just because we like the outcome, then bitch about it when we don't. The federal government intervening on issues such as abortion and same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If people want to make abortion legal across the land then they have to start a movement to amend the constitution, not have a handful of judges in Washington decide what is best for the whole country.

gay marriage can't be that simple. it IS a federal issue. the irs gives federal tax benefits to marriage and thus it has to confront the issue somewhat. in addition, in the interests of interstate relations, there has to be some uniformity. imagine the headache if your driver's license in one state was not recognized in another? it is not like abortion, where theoretically you can simple prohibit the operation of the procedure. it is a legitimate interstate issue that has to be addressed.

i agree with you on abortion though.

timsinclair

Medicated-Genius wrote:

And actually, I did address your main point about dependence on the mother, several posts and pages ago. To state them once again though, a 30 week old fetus is sufficiently developed to survive, with assistance, outside the uterus. A 7 week old embryo is not.... And your analogy of killing disabled patients to compare to the ending of an unwanted pregnancy, is just plain ridiculous.

you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it. if you are going to justify abortion you need a philosophical principle to base it on which must be tested by applying it to other situations. this is how philosophy works.

decides2dream

timsinclair wrote:

you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it.

a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.


Medicated-Genius is right...it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth. BIG difference.


a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it.

the only justification for killing an enbryo is the desire of the woman not to be pregnant for whatever reason. as i said before anything other than that is just bullshit. tis quite simple, if youre against abortion, dont do it. but dont push your 'morality' on those who dont share your view on this. its a deeply personal issue and strangers are not invited.

catefrances

decides2dream wrote:

a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.


Medicated_Genius is right - it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth BIG difference.


a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.

just for the record, i believe an embryo is human. it cant be anything but human. it cant be canine or feline or even cetaceous. all it can be is human.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

no. youre the one bringing up the analogy of a toddler. why do you do this tim? its an argument ive heard before and its a ridiculous one. i am speaking embryonic stage here. the embryo takes all it can from its mother. thats how it grows. if you take it out of its mother, it will die. it needs the mother to survive at this stage. thats the parasitic nature.

Neither the fact that you have heard this argument before, nor the fact that you, like medicatedgenius, think it is 'ridiculous', get you out of answering it. If there is a true principle here, that life can be legitimately killed if it is dependant on another person, it should be able to be legitimately applied to other circumstances.

There is only one difference between the circumstance of abortion, and the other examples I have cited - one you can see the bloodshed-and one you cannot, because it is hidden away out of sight. With abortion you can kid yourself that it is not a true human being, or that the act is not violent. we can invent a whole new terminology to hide away from the truth, we can call it an embryo instead of a baby, we can call it a 'termination' instead of a 'killing' but this is self delusion. It does not change what is really happening.

timsinclair

decides2dream wrote:

a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.


Medicated-Genius is right...it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth. BIG difference.


a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.

If you are going to have a real philosophical justification for abortion , it must pass the test that all philosophical principles have to pass, it must be able to be applied to other situations. the problem is that if you try this for dependance it does not work, as I have pointed out. You have offered two more: the ability to percieve, and the ability to feel pain. Ok, lets do the test, are there other humans who lack the ability to percieve and to feel pain, well yes. A number of severly handicapped people fall into this category. Is it ok to kill them then? hmmm, I doubt you will say yes. Again the ONLY difference here between the two cases is: one you can see the killing - one you cannot.

CorporateWhore

timsinclair wrote:

Neither the fact that you have heard this argument before, nor the fact that you, like medicatedgenius, think it is 'ridiculous', get you out of answering it. If there is a true principle here, that life can be legitimately killed if it is dependant on another person, it should be able to be legitimately applied to other circumstances.

There is only one difference between the circumstance of abortion, and the other examples I have cited - one you can see the bloodshed-and one you cannot, because it is hidden away out of sight. With abortion you can kid yourself that it is not a true human being, or that the act is not violent. we can invent a whole new terminology to hide away from the truth, we can call it an embryo instead of a baby, we can call it a 'termination' instead of a 'killing' but this is self delusion. It does not change what is really happening.

No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."

Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.

Vedderlution_Baby

CorporateWhore wrote:

No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."

Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.

Well, what makes your morals the right morals? Everyone has their own set.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

do you even know the definition of the word genocide?

My dictionary says:

'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'

Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes

I think that covers it.

CorporateWhore

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Well, what makes your morals the right morals? Everyone has their own set.

"Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun."

decides2dream

timsinclair wrote:

If you are going to have a real philosophical justification for abortion , it must pass the test that all philosophical principles have to pass, it must be able to be applied to other situations. the problem is that if you try this for dependance it does not work, as I have pointed out. You have offered two more: the ability to percieve, and the ability to feel pain. Ok, lets do the test, are there other humans who lack the ability to percieve and to feel pain, well yes. A number of severly handicapped people fall into this category. Is it ok to kill them then? hmmm, I doubt you will say yes. Again the ONLY difference here between the two cases is: one you can see the killing - one you cannot.

except you are failing to see the BIG picture:
that embryos possess ALL these factors, and these other groups do not.

bottomline, i could not give a shit what your personal beliefs are, more power to ya! believe what you want to believe, behave in a manner you see fit. as long as your personally held beliefs/morals have NO bearing on laws govenring others, such as pregnant women, and does NOT infringe on their rights to access to ALL options. it's all good. think what you want!


i have no need to *justify* my beliefs to others....let all choose their own way, and i am happy.



btw - i have NEVER heard of a disabled person that had NO sensory perception..whatsoever. some senses may be diminished and/or non-existent...but not ALL..so again, sorry...wrong.

decides2dream

timsinclair wrote:

My dictionary says:

'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'

Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes

I think that covers it.

btw - VERY pooor analogy. if EVERY unborn child were systematically exterminated that might be csomething...but satill a stretch. many, many women get pregnant, the chiuld is intitially unwanted and unborn...but many, many women decide to continue on with the pregnancy as is their individual right and choice to make. so yes, sorry...thanks for playing...but incorrect. if you had some direct correlation that EVERY nitially unwanted child was aborted, you might have a case...but since that is NOT the case.....just doesn't hold water. thanks for playing though.

decides2dream

CorporateWhore wrote:

No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."

Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.

corporatewhore...if you want to call it murder, go for it. my beliefs actually exist outside what your personally held beliefs may be. it has NO bearing. something that was once living, will cease to be living. you can call it murder if you wish. i see a bunch of cells with no sensory perception or awareness, being exterminated...murdered....whatever 'death' adjective of your choosing. the only thing i DON'T see is a thinking, feeling human being being murdered. and therein lies the difference, for me.



btw - truly enjoy your 'selective' participation in threads. try and be the rabble-rouser...post a whole bunch of OPINIONs AS FACT..and when called on.....*poof*...disappear...and then just come back like a breeze to add a comment or two...good for you gutyoulikeafish. how fun!

Touchofgray16

catefrances wrote:

the only justification for killing an enbryo is the desire of the woman not to be pregnant for whatever reason. as i said before anything other than that is just bullshit. tis quite simple, if youre against abortion, dont do it. but dont push your 'morality' on those who dont share your view on this. its a deeply personal issue and strangers are not invited.

Clear and concise answer. Well done. Thank you !

decides2dream

Touchofgray16 wrote:

Clear and concise answer. Well done. Thank you !

its' been said again and again and again and again....ad nauseum. clearly, consisely...by oh so many posters here. therein lies the issue. i respect YOU right to choose as you see fit...but why oh why do others feel they have the right to dictate to others what they think they 'should' do? oh right, b/c those 90% of abortions performed on embryos under 12 weeks are thinking feeling human beings! oh wait...they're not....hmmmmm...so why exactly? b/c someone ELE's morals dictate it, because 'they said so.'

catch22

timsinclair wrote:

My dictionary says:

'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'

Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes

I think that covers it.

actually, the correct answer to the first question is no.

culture: the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.

last i checked, fetuses (feti?) as a group are not exactly making distinct contributions to the arts or scholarship and are not bonded by common beliefs, or behaviors.