You know, when this is read on its own, it feels all moral and stuff.
I wasn’t insulting you, I was insulting your post, which you yourself admit was a rush job. Quite a rush job, in fact, because you went from
to
and really, declaring yourself Christian (I assume that is what you meant by “Christen”) in the same sentence where you say you’ve never read the Bible is really, really hard to reconcile. That and a dozen typographical/grammatical errors in your post pretty much resulted in the gibberish conclusion. I appreciate the clarification such as it is, but you might want to think about not posting in such a hurry.
All unwanted pregnancies are conceived against the mother’s will! Holy fuck!
Sure, but I think the point being made is that, when you allow for abortion in case of rape, your only metric isn’t “abortion kills innocent babies.” You’re tacitly allowing for some measure of personal choice in the matter. Now I can bring in all sorts of stuff that you might previously have been unwilling to consider, like “Why is it only like torture when you force her to have a baby when the conception was against her will? Isn’t the key statement here that you’re forcing her to have a child? Why do the circumstances surrounding conception matter?” At least, that’s how I usually play it =)
Well I’ve always been Pro-Choice, but to me that choice begins much early before a new life is formed, after which that choice is no longer an option.
I hate to break it to you, but the world is vastly more complicated than you wish to believe.
Shouldn’t it be that all unwanted pregnancies are brought to term against the mothers will? It’s possible (if I had lady bits) that I wanted the child during conception and then later (due to change in circumstance, birth defects, whatever) decide against it.
That’s true. There are shades within the pro-life movement just as there are in any political movement, with some people being a little more lenient or pragmatic than others. So what?
I assume you’re trying to imply that this is a slippery slope that would (and should) lead to allowing personal choice in all pregnancies, but I don’t think that’s true, especially given the small percentage of pregnancies that result from rape/incest.
The difference, as you know, is whether the mother made the calculated decision to take the risk of getting pregnant (i.e., willingly had sex). If she chose to do that, then she should have to deal with the consequences. If she didn’t, she shouldn’t. My opinion, anyway.
Not sure, still, why this discussion is even taking place. It’s a waste of time for all involved. People don’t even bother to listen, or have life viewpoints so far removed from each other that communication, let alone respect, is virtually impossible. All these discussions do is foment passionate dislike among the hot-blooded members of the community while leaving their cooler-blooded brethren wandering off in a daze.
I have no idea, TC. You’re going to have to ask Tanaris, it’s his argument, not mine.
She does deal with the consequences, if she gets pregnant. The “pro-life” position, however, mandates a specific set of consequences based on how they judge the woman in question, all revolving around denying certain women bodily autonomy.
My bad. I couldn’t tell if you were restating his argument to make it look more absurd or if you were offering that up as a statement.
I’m not referring to the movement though. I’m referring to your argument specifically.
I assume you’re trying to imply that this is a slippery slope that would (and should) lead to allowing personal choice in all pregnancies, but I don’t think that’s true, especially given the small percentage of pregnancies that result from rape/incest.
Allow me to rephrase. If you’ve allowed for personal choice in determining the fate of (what you believe to be) a life haven’t you already allowed for personal choice in all pregnancies?
Eh, I’m not so big on the “calculated decision” part when it comes to teenagers or when alcohol or other judgment-impairing factors are added. Also, this just sounds like punishment, which in my opinion is a really stupid reason.
MAN WHO BROUGHT THE DOWNER?
I don’t think so, no. The special set of circumstances around the conception, in that case, justify a different decision, in my opinion.
Bueller?
Your post was quite informative, but I’ve never run across the quoted point before. Could you clarify it?
Sorry it took me so long to reply, I got side tracked!
You make some terrific points many of which I never thought of and its help me see the other side of the debate.
My opinion is that once conception has taken place a human being is formed, of coarse I cant show any clinical evidence to prove that just my belief.
Im against any Reproductive clinic that first creates and then destroys embryos. The same goes for contraceptives that interferes with the new life after conception like the “morning after pill”.
Sociology:
-Abortion will never go away, it will go underground and go illegal or over the border. We now know collectively that abortion exists, and nothing that can be legislated will change that. What they can change, otoh, is how accessible and safe abortion is for women.
-Abortion is quite often proxy and/or part and parcel for a culture war. Note cases where some have refused to sell contraceptives; a number sure to skyrocket if abortion is overturned. Abortion is bad eg. because unmarried women are irresponsible having sex eg. having sex unmarried is bad eg. providing contraceptives to have unmarried sex is bad.
I understand that Abortion will never go away but neither will homicides. Making abortion illegal IMO will reduce the about of lives that are taken each year.
I think our society has come along way since Roe v. Wade but if refusing to sell contraceptives is still happening then that needs to be dealt with as a separate issue. I see abortion as racial warfare because (correct me if I’m wrong) the largest percentage of abortions happen in minority communities, effectively keeping them in the minority.
Legislative:
-Outlawing abortion means making abortion and activities that could cause abortion illegal. This could have a pretty wide scope as to legislating not only prenatal care but behavior. And considering the fatalistic 3 strikes laws that are so popular, accidental abortions/miscarriages will be prosecuted, make no mistake.
-The idea that conservatives will pass laws outlawing abortion and then making all powerful, expensive, new government agencies on behalf of women to care for the “abortion babies now up for adoption” is fanciful is not blatantly dishonest.
I agree and those issues will have to be resolved before outlawing could take place, it wontt be easy to do but that doesn’t mean its impossible.
Biblical/Philosophical/Random
-America has the worst 1st world conditions (laws, ect) for helping pregnant women in and out of the workplace (time off, time in hospital, guarantees to keep job, ect). (i might be wrong here in an absolute sense, though) Also hasn’t many proactive feminist laws, the lowest female representation politically, ect. And is the most religious.
-Although the bible seems clear to believers in the US, there is some debate as to whether the bible actually says that God or a prophet says that a person is “born” at conception or at birth. The bible apparently makes no mention of miscarriages at all, and Judaic law does not recognize miscarriages as being the loss of a human being, insofar as i’ve looked.
-There is a lot of transference anger being expressed in the abortion debate by pro-life groups.
-I don’t see any laws being put forward to require men to sponsor, raise, or support their biological children, if they are not adopted. Women may have to be responsible for their behavior (although everyone saying this, or at least half, had a pretty good time in college, i’m sure), but it takes two to tango.
Again I agree it wont be easy but we need to work towards making the proper steps to insure women are supported and men are held accountable.
I’m not familiar enough with Bible to make an informed comment.
I’ve been assuming this whole time that Taranis is a she.
For whatever reason, I find I’m far more apt to entertain discussion on the abortion debate from a pro-choice woman than I am from a pro-choice man. Huh. Reverse sexism?
I see abortion as racial warfare because (correct me if I’m wrong) the largest percentage of abortions happen in minority communities, effectively keeping them in the minority.
Are you suggesting that minority women are somehow coerced into having abortions?
Maybe. I’m always more apt to believe people who sound like idiots on the internet have penises.