Sometimes I accidentally abort myself. Nature kills embryos, humans kill embryos, we all kill embryos. How will the uneducated even know about voluntary sterilization? Through education? Lol, that is not very realistic. That might cost money - nevermind these "handouts" for becoming sterile. Do you think that will create an incentive to sterilize yourself repeatedly? What happens if you sterilize an already sterilized reproductive system? Does it become fertile? "A negative times a negative equals a positive." Nevermind. I would never adopt a white baby - too damned ugly.
Financial incentive has a way of making one smarter. Of course it will cost money, but so will a couple of decades of supporting that child on welfare or in jail. How about we use personal identities to prevent fraud. I'll bet the hospital admissions staffs can do a better job of it! Nature aborts so we don't have to....
I don't know why it had to be an abortion debate at all. I do thank everyone for refraining for 30 posts or so.
dimsie -- i don't pretend to be such a good writer or orator as to believe I'd change your opinion on this topic! unfortunately it's quite divisive, because such strong feelings exist for what both sides claim to be protecting. i suppose we have to agree to disagree...or something like that! but i can't say it doesn't bother me, given my beliefs...at least let it bother me!!
So what caused an action once considered immoral to become considered moral? In the case of slavery, white's rights trumped a black's rights in many people's minds. Is it right? That's a question that can only be answered by an individual. It still really all comes down to whether someone thinks a negroid is a human being or not, and while everyone likes to believe they are right on that issue, there is no right answer to the question. Moral relativism sucks A$$.
OK, we´ve been talking about when life begins bla bla jadda jadda... What I think may be more important than when life begins (because i believe life begins at conception) is selfconcousness. It might sound harsch, but it´s my opinion that if that little fetus/blastula/whatever doesn´t know it exists´, abortion isn´t that bad. Now, I realize that precising the moment when one gains selfconsiousness is probably very hard. Some might even argue that there are grown up humans who are still lacking in this department or that it is not achieved until the child reaches an age of about 1year bla bla... Another thing about the debate that I´ve been thinking abut is that the pro-choicers are not against the pro-lifers, but the pro-lifers are against the pro-choicers. That is there´s the pro-lifers who are trying to force their morality onto others. This has all given me mixed feelings, because normaly I´m not a fan of the "everybody just do as they like" mentality. But I guess ultimately it all comes down to the question at hand, and I´m definitely pro-choice. And to finally address the question about the pill. OK, if your a hardcore pro-lifer, by all means look into it. Make your own choice. Don´t force evrybody to do things like you.
<b>Legendary21</b>: Don't you feel that you belong to a Society or a Community? Does it bother you when your Society/Community endorses practices which you are offended by? Abortion is just such a thing for pro-Lifers. Again, I must assert that this pretense that pro-Choicers are not projecting THEIR morality onto pro-Lifers is absurd. In that case, you are forcing us to be quiet, unwilling conspirators in the death of so many unborns through a LEGAL termination of an innocent life.
OK, here's the thing that peeves me the most about the 'abortion is murder and you shouldn't make me sanction it' crowd. *Invariably*, these people are the same ones who are moaning about the evils of 'welfare' and single mothers. I'd say that 90% of the pro-life crowd are happy to force some woman to have a child, but don't give a damn about said child once the little miracle appears. As George Carlin says, 'once you're born, you're on your own!' Hrmph.
Yes, this crowd does vary, Dimsie, and I can guarantee you that 90% of people who want to reduce the amount of 2 month old babies that are sucked out their mothers wombs REALLY DO give a damn about said child. This is just a ridiculous comment on your part. Sure, every abortion has a different story and we're not to judge the mother or her justification for not carrying the child to full-term. Who is complaining about the "evils" of single mothers? What in the world? If anything, I think, pro-lifers would praise the courage and bravery of a single mother. To hell with dead-beat Dads. Why should pro-lifers sanction abortions, then they wouldn't be pro-life. sanction- 1. Authoritative permission or approval. 2. A consideration, an influence, or a principle that dictates an ethical choice. 3. support, or encouragement, as from public opinion sanctity- 1. Holiness of life or disposition, saintliness.
Invariably, really? Congratulations... you have just made one of the grossest generalizations ever on record. We didn't "force" the woman to have the child; she chose to risk getting pregnant. Why should someone be able to just erase a bad decisiion by terminating a life? Go ahead be peeved; we grieve for the dead.
My last thought... Killing animals for food (for myself) goes against the standards I've set for myself ethically. I feel extremely sad when I think about slaughterhouses and feed lots. It is a deeply emotional issue for me. For many who have similar beliefs, the killing of an animal for food is no different from the killing of another human, particularly given the fact that killing an animal for food is unnecessary in our modern era. Will I choose to eat meat conciously? No. Do I think that others should be forced to accept my beliefs and not eat meat? No. I do not choose to ask anyone to accept my beliefs or to cease their actions. I THINK that may be the reason many of those who are pro choice feel like those who are pro life are forcing their beliefs on them. However, there are plenty of times when those who use pro choice beliefs do so as a means to push THEIR beliefs as well and it would be idiotic to think that they don't. We all have our beliefs and we all want them recognized as valid or, at the very least, possible. The only thing we can do is try to respect each other no matter how much we may disagree.
No, one of the grossest generalisations ever on record would be if I'd said *all* of the prolifers are anti-welfare. I said most, and I stand by that. I bet if we (not just the BBS, say the population of the US) were all in a room together (yeah, it's a big room) and all the pro-lifers raised their hands, and all the anti-welfare folk raised their other hands, there'd be a bunch of people with both hands in the air. 90%? Maybe. Dunno. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have given a figure. But my essential point remains. Spare me the Drama Queen theatrics. What sanctimonious twaddle! Good for a laugh though. I seriously doubt you're wandering around constantly with a mourning band on your right arm and a tiny white hanky clutched to your blotchy, weeping visage... Since there is and has always been *debate* about when a baby actually *is* a baby, this overly general moralistic high ground of yours doesn't hold water. (Oh, and by the way, your constant use of the word 'rutting' is kind of... odd. Just IMO.) TheFreak: dude. Come on. Surely you can do better than that? That tired old 'ditzie' was really the best insult you could come up with? Lame, lame, lame... you know, I'm clearly a b itch, but one thing I'm obviously not is a ditz.
<b>dimsie</b>: Here is what you wrote to which I objected: "I'd say that 90% of the pro-life crowd are happy to force some woman to have a child, but don't give a damn about said child once the little miracle appears." Yes it is hard to care for every child born on the planet. Duh?! Make all the fun that you want, but I won't sink into your heartlessness. Go ahead, be in love with your diarrhetoric. Drama Queen? Sanctimonious twaddle? I weep with those cuts! The debate you cite is sparked by those seeking to kill unborn babies. It is a spurious argument only seeking to justify abortion. As I've said many times, a respectful cautioun would be a sensible approach instead of your know-it-allness that ends lives. "Well, if it's up in the air, let's just kill the babies until it's clear we shouldn't..." IT'S CLEAR YOU SHOULDN'T. Mine is not the high-ground. It is the vast middle-ground where babies aren't destroyed because some don't wish to face the responsibilities of their actions. That's a nice attempt at off-putting but it just won't fly. BTW-- I made continual references to "rutting" because some were implying that I was letting young fathers off the hook with regards to their responsibility. My use of "rutting" was meant to be remindful of their base motives and lack of thought. When all is said and done, unwanted teen pregnancies are still a greater problem for women because of the obvious reasons. Do not construe this to mean that males do not have equal responsibility. Certainly they don't have equal consequences because the males don't carry and deliver the child.
Don't roll eyes at me, dearie, when you're obviously the one who is confused here. Yes, dimwit, I answered my own question. Now go back and read the quote. Oh, and for the record, I'm pro-choice, Dimsie. AND PRO-LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Huh. Never would have guessed that one. Fight the power, my exclamatory friend. Giddyup: here's the reason I get snippy about this issue when reading your posts, in particular. You may not want to come across this way, but you do: your constant implication is that those of us who are pro-choice have a less well-developed moral compass - are, in fact, less moral people - than those of us who are pro-life. And frankly, I don't think that's borne out at all. These questions are controversial because there *are* no black and white answers. If this was a simple issue then no one would be arguing, would they? I find it irritating to have my side of the argument characterised as callous disregard when I (and I'm sure many others here) have spent a lot of time thinking about abortion and what it means. That's why I brought up the overlap between social conservatism (anti-abortion) and fiscal conservatism (anti-welfare). General question, not really for giddyup: is your 'morality' really as consistent as you think it is? 'Base motives'. Woo. I'm not going anywhere near that one. However, I will say that if you're going to tell me that women have more consequences but they *shouldn't* have the lion's share of the decision-making process, that's just freakishly archaic. I feel like I'm arguing this issue with someone who believes in clitoridectomy to cure female 'hysteria'.
Doubt it, but I didn't think the stereotyping was either. Besides, everything I could've added has already been said, so that's all I could contribute. dimsie -- have you been called that before? Why is it tired? My apologies for the name-calling.....it was heat of the moment, I succumbed to the pressures. I'm really a nice guy, seriously.
