If you used to be horrible then I'll agree you're a changed man. If we made our policies and decisions based on emotion rather than logic...we would have nuked 1/3 of the world on September 12, 2001.
Thanks, Refman. It's what I like about discussing these tough issues with you as well. And it's not even that any of us are moderates (or at least I'm not and I don't think you are), just that we're willing to recognize that both sides have a good point. Again, this is one of the toughest ones. Can't reconcile the mother's right to choose with the father's right to be involved in the choice. Can't reconcile the horror of a child from rape or incest or, even worse, both, with the variables embraced by those who call one abortion murder and another unfortunate but acceptable. giddyup, you asked which murders or deaths were acceptable. I know from your past posts that you don't find killing unacceptable across the board. If you did, it would easier for me to listen to your shrill shrieking. I'm pretty sure you're for the death penalty. I think if you check statistics on death row, you'll find a lot of unwanted children gone bad. But maybe you're just for killing guilty people. In which case I'd ask you how you feel about innocent civilians dying in wars. I think Refman would say that the deaths of innocent civilians in wars was a tragic but necessary side effect of doing the rightest thing possible, if not the perfect thing -- making a tough decision that is ultimately best for the most people. War isn't black and white. Neither is abortion. Thanks to all for a (mostly) civil discussion on the most emotional of issues.
Excellent post Batman!!! I think you really nailed it. And yes, I think you stated my position fairly.
I'm genuinely curious about something I've noticed with the abortion debate. It seems to me that the people that get the most angered by it are men. I'm trying to understand why that is. Mrs. JB, I think the core problem is the two sides look at it differently: Women: It's <B>my</B> body. Men: It's <B>our</B> kid. Men want a say, and often women say they shouldn't have one. Thus, tension is created. This doesn't apply to all men or all women of course, but I think this is the source of much of the frustration on the part of men. Because it's in the common interest of the society to have children adequately provided for. If you allow men to have the option to not support a child because they didn't want it, you'd see a huge rise in the number of pro-choice men. RM95, I think the problem here is that many people would argue it's also in the common interest of society for fetuses to be given the chance at life. If you allow women to have the option to not support a child because they didn't want it, then it screws over the fathers and the potential kids. Thus, we've gone full circle in the abortion debate.
Well, I think we'd all agree, it'd be the perfect scenario if abortions never happened, pro-choice or pro-life. However, they do occur, so you've got to weigh which option would benefit society more-letting men skirt child support because they claim they didn't want the child or requiring men to support their children regardless or whether they wanted it or not. I think it's obvious that the latter is more beneficial, regardless of the seemingly inconsistent views. What I really want to know is how many abortion cases are there where the men wanted to keep the kid and the woman still aborted. I'd venture to say not that many.
However, they do occur, so you've got to weigh which option would benefit society more-letting men skirt child support because they claim they didn't want the child or requiring men to support their children regardless or whether they wanted it or not. Agreed, but there's a third option which is making abortion illegal. Some people would argue that benefits society even more than either of the two options above. Sure, abortions would still occur, but their numbers would be substantially lower. So the same logic you use to argue that men should still be required to pay child-support is the same argument used to be pro-life.
Same logic can be used for the pro-choice position as well. Actually, that's the logic that's used in nearly every argument where legislating issues like abortion is concerned.
You can't possibly say that. There is a rash of litigation by men who want the kid and are willing to let the mother have no responsibilities after birth. I'd venture to say that there are scores of situations where the woman has the abortion without ever telling the guy that she is pregnant. I'm also willing to guess that there are a lot of guys out there who freak out when they are first told that they are gonna be a daddy. Then after the shock wears off they warm up to the idea. But by then she has already made the decision based on his initial response. In any event, I don't think that the statement you made is fair.
How did I try to prove anyone immoral? Would you please point up where my verbiage justifies your accusation. I don't see it... I just asked a question.
I'll show you... This is strong verbiage. I tend to agree with you. However, this suggests that those who believe in abortion rights also believe in child murder...no different than any child who is kidnapped and murdered. I can see where Jeff and others may read an accusation of immorality into your post.
Refman got part of it... This is essentially using the quote Mrs JB made about the face of abortion being an angry male and turning it into something else. This statement is placing a moral value on the belief for or against abortion. If I read it wrong, my bad. Once again, you turn a question around. It is almost like you want someone to say, "Well, I think life X is more important than life Y." No intellegent person is going to get into that debate. But, you place a moral value on the specific belief in life at conception vs. otherwise. Like I said, I understand why you do it. It is your belief. But, placing a value judgement on someone else's belief won't win arguments and really won't convince anyone either. In fact, for most of us (you are probably this way as well), placing us in a category that is contrary to a certain set of values causes us to view those values less with respect and more with contempt.
Of course I was paralleling Mrs JB's remark; I think she made a huge oversight and I was pointing it out. Jeff, I don't see where my language is value-laden. I asked a question albeit a somewhat rhetorical question. I ask it because I think she is looking past certain hugely important aspects of her position.
No flaming here, just an honest question. In most states there is an age of consent law regarding minors and sex. I think it changes from state to state, but for the sake of the discussion lets set the age at 16. Technically(sp?) a girl under 16 is the victim of a crime, whether the sex was consensual or not. Are you OK with girls in this situation having an abortion?
Intentional or not it is clearly value laden. "Dead child" equals values on life at conception. It gives a connotation that pro-choicers are murderous. I don't really care about the connotation so much because I lean to the pro-life side of this debate. I have always found it interesting how this debate is framed. Pro-choice vs. pro-life. If you are on the opposite side of pro-life does that make you pro-death? I'm not sure that follows. I realize I'm playing semantics here...but I think the conceptual labels are important to understanding the level of acrimony. You also spoke of being indignant. This is a nasty word, man. It shows contempt for the other side of the debate and I think that is what Jeff was picking up on. I tend to agree with you on this giddyup...I'm just saying that your methodology isn't helping the pro-life side of the debate.
An excellent question. There are 2 points I need to make in response (I'll try not to be too technical). 1) The rationale for allowing abortion in the case of rape is that it is a violent crime. Statutory rape is not necessarily a violent crime. It is consensual sex at an age where the law deems the consent to be invalid. A distinction can be made. 2) In most states for it to be statutory rape the female must be under the age of consent and 2 or 4 years younger (depending on the state) than the man. For instance if the age of consent is 16...the female is 15...the guy is 17...looks like it isn't statutory rape. Therefore the rape analysis does not apply. Great question though.
Dead does not equate with murdered. Dead is dead. It is the face of pro-choice because pro-choice often ends in a choice to abort and that means a dead child. You all can pussyfoot all you want with the wording but that is the reality. Convince me otherwise. I don't believe in mincing around the argument with nice-nice words to make someone feel better. It is not my intention to change the mind of those who are pro-abortion. I am more interested in describing the act for what it is for the undecided. I am indignant whenever innocent life is terminated. Is it bad to say so? Probably you too are indignant. Most are yet still some choose to fold on this matter and make a determination convenient for their own worldview about when a human life begins. Hey if you're like me you can't say for certain when life begins so it is best to err on the side of caution... AT CONCEPTION. Otherwise, you are making that determination without all the information you need to know for sure. Somebody may be dyingfor it, too. As I've pointed out before, we give criminals in court (certainty beyond a reasonable doubt) more of a safety zone than we give a fetus. How that can be anything other than wrong (except in cases or rape or incest or health issues) is beyond my understanding.
Speaking of death in this context, the natural implication is that the act of abortion is an act of murder. This is my general argument. An excellent point. You are now arguing using logic rather than emotional inflammatory statements.
<b>Batman</b>: I have not shrieked at any point. Why don't you quit with the insults; they detract from your argument. Mine is a monotonous rhythm pointing out the same basic things: innocent lives deserve protection from abortion. Can you try and make your points without insulting? I have called no one names. I have not characterized anyone. I simply asserted some alternative viewpoints and I have asked some tough questions and for that I get abuse.... <b>Refman</b>: I don't believe you will find a place where I said that an aborted fetus was murdered. That is not my language, so please don't try and paint me into a corner with it. Part of the successful strategy of the pro-abortion movement is to control the language used in the discussion. Babies are fetuses, pro-abortion is only pro-choice, anti-abortionists think pro-choicers are murderers, etc. I choose not to follow those dictates. Do as you will. Calling <b>Mrs.JB</b> and her dictionary: Indignant: "filled with anger aroused by something unjust" How is the use of that word being judgemental? What is more unjust than the killing of an innocent life in the name of family planning? <b>Jeff</b>: I don't know if it is my "belief" that life begins at conception, but I have a profound respect for that possibility. Calling it a "belief" is way to relative for my sake. I don't know anything for certain, do you? I wish some of you would spend one-tenth as much time countering my arguments as you do criticizing my style. It's very telling, you know.
No...you just said that it had been killed...that's SOOOOOOO much different. Play semantics all you would like, but you have made it abundantly clear that you feel these people are immoral. I come out on the same side of the debate as you do, but frankly I find it repugnant that you are harming our side of the argument by being accusatory, heavy handed and rude. You said that abortion is a dead child. A child that dies at somebody else's volition is murdered. That's common parlance giddyup. Therefore you insinuated that people who have abortions are murderers. And you took all ambiguity out of it with your response to Mrs. JB in your last post. You are not making any arguments...just conclusory statements. There is no major premise and no minor premise...just conclusions. So you're not giving us anything to criticize BUT your "style." I call it criticizing your tone and tenor, but what the hell do I know?
Abortion is a crime against Humanity and God. I consider it Murder of the unborn child developing in the Womb!
