Fascists! Murderers! and other terms of endearment.

[TheEschaton]

I'm just moving Ed's abortion link to a separate thread.

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVarticle.asp?ID=18266&pid=1098

I'll refrain from comment at the moment (have I commented on this before? I fear I might of).

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I'm pro-life..

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I'm pro-life..

Cool! YOU have the baby. In the meantime, I shall make my own choices. :)

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Deciding on whether or not a baby lives isn't your choice. If you get raped and somehow get impregnated (studies show that less then 1% rapes end up with a pregnancy) then ok, go ahead. If not, it's your responsibility to take care of the living being in your womb.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Hulkein]

[Artha]

I can't see very many reasons why it's ok to kill a baby, born or not. If you can't handle the responsibility, you should've made the guy wear a rubber or taken the pill.

[Edaarin]

That's great in an ideal world. So, hypothetical situation. You're 16, you get your girl pregnant. You book because you're a scum bag. What's she supposed to do? Her parents won't help out because they're tapped, and she doesn't have any way to make money. Child grows up impoverished, and no one in Washington gives a fuck.

EDIT: For the record, I'm pro-life, but it never hurts to see both sides.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Edaarin]

[Sean]

I'm pro-choice but i think we've had this debate before.

[Miss X]

In the words of the PEP, Its pro-choice or no choice.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Edaarin
That's great in an ideal world. So, hypothetical situation. You're 16, you get your girl pregnant. You book because you're a scum bag. What's she supposed to do? Her parents won't help out because they're tapped, and she doesn't have any way to make money. Child grows up impoverished, and no one in Washington gives a fuck.

Adoption.

[Hulkein]

What's the difference between killing a baby in the third trimester or killing a baby 1 hour old? Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you kill it. Side note, abortions cost money.

[HarmNone]

Umm, we seem to be focused on the woman's responsibility here. To the best of my knowledge, it takes two people to create a pregnancy, yet only one must risk her life to give birth. It is my belief that the one risking her life should have the deciding vote on whether to do so, or not.

Additionally, a great deal depends on when you believe an embryo to be a "baby". Believe it or not, not everyone holds the same view on that issue.

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

I realize not everyone agrees on when an unborn child is an actual child, that's where the entire argument stems from. But you can't argue that partial-birth abortions weren't horrible. Thank God they were done away with.

[Miss X]

You are very lucky Hulkein, you will never have to stare that decision in the face. Every women who falls pregnant has the right to decide what she does, after all it is HER body. If I found out I was pregnant, at this point in my life I would probably have an abortion and I sure as hell would not be made to feel guilty about that decision for the rest of my life.

[TheEschaton]

I am against abortion, but I dislike both labels of pro-life and pro-choice, because pro-life makes the other side sound like murderers, and pro-choice makes the other side sound like control-freak fascists (hence the title).

Besides, my being against abortion doesn't make me conservative, like the pro-life movement is. In fact, it makes me more liberal.

It seems so obvious to me, yet I'm like the only Democrat I know who's against abortion.

One side promotes the welfare of unborn children, yet has no scruples about killing adults indiscriminately with the death penalty, the other side will argue for why convicted murderers should live, while saying it's acceptable to kill fetuses. Neither side has it right in my opinion.

As the late Cardinal Bernadin said in regards to how we should treat life, with the utmost reverence, "from the womb, to the tomb."

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

You're right, I am lucky I'll never have to deal with that situation.. If I ever get a girl pregnant I'm not married to I would guarantee you I'd support her and the kid as best I could, I would never just take off.. I guess that's about all a guy can do in the situation. I just don't agree that just because you're carrying the child means you can kill it. It's just a difference in POV that people RARELY will change, no matter what is said.

[Vesi]

Pro-choice.

I also believe in the death sentence.

I'm considered very liberal by most people I know. Make of it what you will.

Vesi

Edited to add about the death sentence.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Vesi]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I realize not everyone agrees on when an unborn child is an actual child, that's where the entire argument stems from. But you can't argue that partial-birth abortions weren't horrible. Thank God they were done away with.

Partial birth abortions are a separate issue entirely. I, too, am glad they were made illegal.

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I am against abortion, but I dislike both labels of pro-life and pro-choice, because pro-life makes the other side sound like murderers, and pro-choice makes the other side sound like control-freak fascists (hence the title).
-TheE-

Heh, we were talking about Euphamisms in my one class and that's the exact example I brought up.

Edit- As far as the rest of your post.. I agree with most of it except there is a valid reasons why a lot of conservatives are for the death penalty and opposed to abortion.. A baby is an innocent life while convicted murderers are actually deserving (in a lot of minds) of what they have coming for them.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Hulkein]

[Xcalibur]

Women's choice, the time where men decide for women is resolute since aeons.

[Edited on 15-2-04 by Xcalibur]

[TheEschaton]

yet only one must risk her life to give birth.

Maybe if it was the 12th century, you'd have an argument. I think the brunt of the anti-abortion argument is not talking about medically-necessary abortions, or rape victim abortions.


Every women who falls pregnant has the right to decide what she does, after all it is HER body.

It's illegal to kill yourself, you know. If you survive the attempt, that is.

I'm not anti-choice. I just believe people make the choice when they have sex. Slice it any way you want, the purpose of sex is to produce life, throughout the whole animal kingdom. If a life is produced, it must be seen as no more than a natural and expected consequence of sex.

And I'm all about not ducking responsibility.

-TheE-
P.S. It's far more complicated, from the father's role in everything, to society's view on single mothers, inadequate childrearing help for working mothers, inadequate help financially for single mothers, etc, etc. Like I said, the issue makes me more liberal, as opposed to pushing me towards the center.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Women's choice, the time where men decided for women is dead since aeons.

There are plenty of women opposed to it... that isn't a valid argument in my mind. It's not a mans choice or a womens choice, it's a right for the life in the womb. If 75% of women were opposed to abortion does that mean it should be outlawed? I just don't like when people act like it's just men trying to be dominent. Ahh well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I've said my part, I'll have fun reading this thread from the sidelines.

[Miss X]

No, its still going on right now. Read the PEP website http://www.protectchoice.org/pba.htm that link is to a page about the partial birth ban. Take a glance at the statistic at the top of the page.... 77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant......

[TheEschaton]

As for the living status of the unborn child, I think it is irrelevant in that the fetus will one day be living, by anyone's definition.

After all, we eat the unfertilized eggs of chickens. Would you eat them if they had baby chick fetuses instead of yolks? (A clearly inflammatory example, but what the hell).

-TheE-

[Xcalibur]

Sorry, let me state my opinion again: it's the person being pregnant's choice.

Us, men, cannot judge how it is for a woman to be pregnant, nor the woman that was or not pregnant before cannot judge her in any way.

[Edited on 15-2-04 by Xcalibur]

[TheEschaton]

100% of women'll never get their dick chopped off either, does that mean they have no say about whether it's right or not to chop off dicks?

-TheE-

[Sean]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
After all, we eat the unfertilized eggs of chickens. Would you eat them if they had baby chick fetuses instead of yolks? (A clearly inflammatory example, but what the hell).

-TheE-

would save the the effort of adding meat products to my omlets.

[Miss X]

I hardly think you can compare pregnancy to getting your dick chopped off.
Men have every right to an opinion on abortion but they will never have to go through the process themselves, therefore they, in my opinion, are less qualified to be passing laws regarding it.

[TheEschaton]

Again, I would argue abortion is an issue in which one does not have to experience it to know the morality of it.

Are you saying I have to kill someone before I can conclude "murder is wrong"? I concur that pregnancy is a difficult time and women should be fully supported during it. I don't think it automatically makes a man less qualified to speak on abortion. Like HarmNone said (ooooh, turning someone's words on them!) it takes two people to make a pregnancy - by that respect, both people should have a say, provided the man is willing to support said woman unequivocally.

-TheE-

[Miss X]

Like I said, men have every right to an opinion, and I do not doubt that abortion can be traumatising for a man as well as for a woman that has to go through it. However I belive wholeheartedly that it is the womans choice to make, simply because it is her body.

Of course, should I fall pregnant and be considering abortion, and my partner expressed his disgust at the idea etc I may take more time to consider his rights and his point of view, however the decision would be down to me and only me at the end of the day.

[TheEschaton]

This is actually an entry from my livejournal from like, this past September. I think it outlines much of the argument (from my POV) pretty clearly.
______________________________________________
Conservatives* are dumb

Sorry to bring up such a well-discussed topic (at least in my head, it is).

Conservatives* have only one attack motive. They scream at you. They scream at you til you clutch your ears and your eyes start to bleed, and you give up for the sake of your physical health.

So, anyways, I was discussing how I was against the war, because I value life, and some nutjob practically screams at me, "Then why are you pro-choice!!!!! You liberals are such hypocrites, you support the saving of lives in war, but we KILL ONE POINT THREE MILLION INNOCENT CHILDREN EVERY YEAR." No doubt a fully-paid-up member of the 700 club and the Christian Coalition.

This rant continued for quite awhile, before I could get in that I was indeed pro-life. I also added that it was just as hypocritical for conservatives to be against abortion, but for the death penalty, in the case of the "life is sacred" argument. To his credit, he was against the death penalty. This admission that I, a self-proclaimed liberal, was pro-life, stunned him temporarily, until I added, "But it is dangerous to be pro-life in this current day and age." And he went on some long tirade about how the "right way" was always less sure, more dangerous, blah, blah, blah, fast forward for awhile.

After I managed to quiet him, I said it is dangerous to be pro-life because it risks moral equivalency - namely, that it can quickly turn to immorality. And I wasn't talking about the whackos who killed abortion doctors, or were otherwise violent outside abortion clinics, etc, etc.

I was talking about social reform. Let me elucidate by stating my case. Assume I was running for political office, which I hope to do, some day. Someone, on the campaign trail, asks me what my stance on the abortion issue is, as I'm a liberal Democrat in a blue collar type of place (Buffalo, my hometown). This is how I would respond.

I am very much pro-life, but to me, the question is one of personal, versus public politics. For me, being pro-life is part of my "personal politics", in that I disagree with abortion, I think it is morally bankrupt except in some extreme cases, and that I wish no one would ever have an abortion [Ed's note: I wish]. It is not part of my "public politics", IE, things I would pursue in office, because society cannot handle such a responsibility. You see, to be pro-life issues a great responsibility: that if you want these 1.3 million kids a year to live, there has to be some societal responsibility for them. Society is taking individual responsibility out of the equation, because society is not allowing the individual to make a choice in this situation, and thus, society has to shoulder the responsibility. Therefore, you CANNOT be responsibly pro-life, unless you push for social reform. This reform needs to be wide-reaching, from the economical, allowing more help for single mothers and poor families who cannot afford children, to educational, where public schooling has to be good enough to give all these children a good education, to healthcare, because all these children will need a doctor's care.

Furthermore, there has to be reform in society's VIEW of the act of having children. Many women have abortions because they view "having children" as being a detriment to their lives, an insidious way to prevent women from going to school or have the careers they want. Society reinforces this notion, and goes a step further in morally stigmatizing these women - unless women have children in a stable heterosexual marriage, with enough money to take care of the child, the woman is being "irresponsible" at best, a whore at worst. These women are called whores for having children out of wedlock, the children grow up with the pariah label of "bastard child", and these people are isolated and abandoned by society. Women who have children in marriage, but don't have the money to support them are accused of welching off the gov't teat, told to "stop having kids" and to stop being lazy and worthless, and a welfare mom. Forget about gay adoption, the idea of gay people having kids is so reprehensible in society today its not even worth discussing the stigmas put on that (see ABC's new sitcom, "It's All Relative"). The opposite needs to happen: society, if it wishes to be pro-life, must be pro-life at all stages. It must support the woman who is trying to give this child a good life, it must band together as a community to love and embrace these women, even if we still view them as having made a mistake. Indeed, society needs to start looking as having a baby, no matter what the situation, not as a mistake, but a miracle. We must be willing to sacrifice, in the monetary sense of the word, to get these children, not ours physically, but ours commonly, the life they deserve.

When you say you are pro-life - but don't wish to spend any money on programs helping single mothers, you are morally irresponsible. When you say you are pro-life - but don't wish to make the public schools equal to any private school, you are morally irresponsible. When you say you are pro-life - but don't think all children should have universal healthcare - you are morally irresponsible. When you are pro-life - but call single mothers "sluts" and "whores" and call poor mothers "irresponsible" and "lazy", you are morally irresponsible.

You cannot be pro-life, unless you are an advocate for social reform.

Thus, my little speech would end, and people would bask. The problem would be thus, though: social reform is a decidedly liberal stance, while pro-life is a decidedly conservative one. People would be in a quandry, except for me, the liberal pro-lifer (why liberals have been associated with pro-choice is beyond me).

If people argued the whole choice thing, there's a whole other argument as to why one's choice (IE, "pursuit of happiness") is superceded by one's right to live. It's a bit more complex, but I think it holds up, and I'll save it for some other time.

Going back to the whole public/personal politics, I would never make pro-life part of my platform, unless I could implement at the same time, the needed social reform with it.

The conservative in this argument brought up one point which I think merits discussion. I argued you cannot do an action without having a plan for the aftermath (something George Bush knows a bit about in Iraq), but the conservative argued that it is just as irresponsible to allow the killing of innocent children to go on while we work to implement these social changes.

I responded something smart, saying "Shall we drop the 1.3 million kids at your house while we figure it out?" but I think the point stands. Abortion is morally reprehensible. The moral dilemma is: do you stop it as quickly as possible, aftermath be damned, just as long as its done? Or do you make sure these kids can have a life worth living before you force people to have children? I thought about it for awhile, and I still think I'm right, in that if we implement the first option, we'll have 1.3 million kids living neglected. 1.3 million kids who could go hungry, lay in their own feces, be beat by the parents that didn't want them. This is offset by adoption, some, but I think the analogy still stands. The question becomes, is murder before the victim can feel anything more reprehensible than child abuse?

I don't know, and I don't want to draw a conclusion, really, but Dostoevsky said in Ivan's Rebellion in The Brothers Karamazov that there was nothing worse than abuse of innocent children. But then again, they didn't have abortion back then. I am slightly leaning towards the child abuse being worse, if only that we only feel pain temporarily if we are killed quickly, like abortion, and then, if we are innocent (as unborn children are) we go to Heaven. A child feels pain for its whole known life, if it is born to an abusive (read: neglectful parents who don't want the child) house.

Then there's the whole "Do men really have a say?" issue. I think they do, but that's a whole other argument. I think its bullshit to say men have no say, since half the child is indeed, from the man in the relationship.

You down with,
~APP
Yeah, you know me.


*Conservatives, in this case, usually refer to what I like to call neo-cons. The rabid, I'm always right, you're always wrong, Ann Coulter worshipping, all liberals are traitors, type of conservative. They are by far no majority, its just that they shriek louder than everyone else (including their liberal counterparts).

______________________________________

Since then, I haven't addressed the whole "freedom of choice" thing, nor the role of men. In fact, looking at my livejournal, I apparently haven't written in it since December. But maybe I'll write those pieces up tonight.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

What you say makes sense, TheE, provided all the conditions you outline are met. If our current society was as you describe, I might look at the whole issue of abortion very differently. However, that is not the world in which we live, so I shall hold to my belief that it is the woman's right to choose.

Additionally, I maintain that nobody can tell someone else what is "moral" and what is "immoral". Those are matters to be decided by one's personal beliefs. What is legal or illegal is easily defined, and illegal actions will require one to bear the consequences should they get caught. Murder is illegal in this country. Abortion is not.

HarmNone

[i remember halloween]

i just love how some people are against the death penalty yet proabortion. it doesn't get anymore insane than that.

[Ravenstorm]

Speaking as a firm pro-choice proponent, I'm also in favor of the death penalty.

That law banning all partial birth abortions should, and most likely will be, overturned and it can't be too soon. The biggest problem with it is that it makes no provision for medical reasons. Better the fetus should live even if the mother dies is not going to withstand the courts.

Raven

[Miss X]

wheeew, long read and some very valid points made, however we do not live in an ideal world and we never will.
I will always stand by my belief that women have the right to decide on whether they end their pregnancy or not, regardless of social reforms.

There are many reasons why women have abortions, most of which we will never fully understand because of the nature of the issue. Each women has her own reasons, it is not for us to judge her unless we can spend some time in her shoes.

[Bobmuhthol]

I think the child should have the option of aborting the mother.

[Warriorbird]

So, E, because I think you're an intelligent fellow. What're your feelings on overpopulation?

[Edaarin]

Man, I thought I was a nerd because I like dropping 'myopic' in a conversation, but I think 'elucidate' wins out.

Big words aside, I just don't think a lot of people understand exactly what would happen if abortion were outlawed. You'd have a million or more babies born every year whose parents stand a good chance of not being able to support them and therefore would be given up to adoption. Do you think there are that many families that could support them all? Nope. And would the right give two shits about them, so long as they're allowed the 'opportunity to live?' You bet not. You think they want to increase the amount of money they're spending on transfer payments? No dice.

Ideologically, I agree with most of the points from the pro life pov, and my religion holds that all life is sacred. But practically, it won't work. If you can propose a solution to this that works out for the (at least) hundreds of thousands of babies every year that won't have a fair chance in the world, I'm all ears.

Hmm...if all life is sacred...no more executions, yah?

[imported_Kranar]

<< There are many reasons why women have abortions, most of which we will never fully understand because of the nature of the issue. >>

This simply isn't true. There is more than enough information available to understand peoples reasons for abortions, more than enough studies and statistics gathered to know why people have an abortion. And those same studies show that only 6 percent of abortions occur because of either medical/health risks, or rape.

All other reasons for wanting an abortion are superficial. It's just way too easy in this country for a women to kill an unborn child to save their own ass.

Quite frankly, I personally don't care what a woman wants to do with their body. The second a man speaks out over it they're some facist womanizer, well fine, if a woman wants to kill the thing, go ahead and do it. I just can't stand all these euphemisms to mask something as extreme as an abortion, like it's no big deal.

And let's face it, when 1.3 million abortions are conducted in the U.S. every year for any reason whatsoever, you have to admit... those doing the aborting aren't treating it with much of any responsibility.

Abortion is just another form of birth control, so you'll have to excuse me for finding that to be utterly wrong and irresponsible.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Again, I would argue abortion is an issue in which one does not have to experience it to know the morality of it.

Are you saying I have to kill someone before I can conclude "murder is wrong"? I concur that pregnancy is a difficult time and women should be fully supported during it. I don't think it automatically makes a man less qualified to speak on abortion. Like HarmNone said (ooooh, turning someone's words on them!) it takes two people to make a pregnancy - by that respect, both people should have a say, provided the man is willing to support said woman unequivocally.

-TheE-

You do not have to actually experience it, but how about to even have the possibility of that?

And as far as the support goes. If all men simply automatically supported all the offspring they are responsible for there would not be any need for the courts to force so many to do so.

The facts say that many men just dont give a damn about the child that the woman would have to find a way to support if not given any choice as so many men seem to feel they can decide for us.

[Miss X]

I respect your opinion however as an interpretivist sociologist I have always believed that relying on statistics to garner information that is both valid and reliable about an issue as personal as abortion is a mistake. Of course, at the core of the interpretivist theory is the idea that we need to stand in the shoes of the other to fully appreciate and understand their point of view.

Unless you have the ability to read minds you will never fully understand why a woman chooses to have an abortion because it is a personal decision. I think perhaps because it is such an emotional issue, many people have problems looking at it from an objective point of view.

Look at it like this: I find out I'm pregnant tomorrow, I'm 21 I have a great education a supportive family and enough money to be comfortable but I have an abortion. I'm added to the tally of women that have had a 'cosmetic' abortion and it looks to the outside world that I used abortion as a birth control method. This is an assumption that many people make without fully knowing the facts. Only 6% of abortions are because of medical/health risks and rape according to what? A few studies and surveys, which cannot be considered 100% reliable or valid. Every individual has her own reasons, it would not only be ignorant but also arrogant for anyone to claim they are fully aware of them.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The facts say that many men just dont give a damn about the child that the woman would have to find a way to support if not given any choice as so many men seem to feel they can decide for us. Easy there feminism. :D I think it's a bit irresponsible to say that many men don't care about their children.

Abortion is the symptom, not the disease. 1.3 million children is a nice number to bandy about and say "Well we've got to do something with them!!" when the actual problem is ignored.

I used to be pro-choice until we had a lil class where a priest (go figure) described exactly what the methods of abortion were (causing one kid to faint) and then I wasn't anymore.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I respect your opinion however as an interpretivist sociologist I have always believed that relying on statistics to garner information that is both valid and reliable about an issue as personal as abortion is a mistake. >>

Okay, so what do you base your knowledge on if not scientifically conducted statistical information? I mean there is an actual scientific process involved in gathering this information, and heck if it's true that statistics are inaccurate, then why don't the studies show that 94 percent of abortions are due to medical/health risks or rape? And you're free, and even welcome to find statistical information from pro-choice resources.

It's not like it's a close call here, where perhaps there's a margin of error that could suggest that women aren't aborting because of rape or risks to health. The figures are staggering and clearly illustrate that abortion is being used liberally and with little regard or consideration for the life being sacrificed.

Legal or illegal, abortion is being used as a form of birth control.

[HarmNone]

For some, abortion is a method of birth control. However, those individuals (both the male and the female) were irresponsible quite awhile before they decided to abort. Otherwise, no pregnancy would exist and there would be no need to consider abortion. The problem asserts itself long before abortion becomes the issue.

HarmNone

[imported_Kranar]

<< The problem asserts itself long before abortion becomes the issue. >>

The problem did assert itself long before the abortion, and yet it's the unborn child who is made the pay for that problem.

[HarmNone]

In those particular cases, for the most part, that child is going to pay whether he/she is born or aborted. It is sad, but true.

HarmNone

[imported_Kranar]

Agreed.

[Valthissa]

I still truggle to understand the following:

does human life consist of a mind, a body, and a soul/spirit?

if you think the answer to this question is no, then abortion is an easy question.

if you think the answer is yes, than he question becomes when did you get your soul? was it at conception? 10 seconds later? 9 months later? your first breath? willing to bet someone else's soul you know the mind of god in this matter?

having had one, I feel fully qualified to speak on the subject.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

No one can understand another person completely. Can no one help each other?


However, that is not the world in which we live, so I shall hold to my belief that it is the woman's right to choose.

That brings up the whole idealism vs. reality debate. I say we should always shoot for idealism, because it'll never happen, if you don't try for it, or think it's impossible. A fight is lost as soon as you say, "I have no chance of beating this guy".



Additionally, I maintain that nobody can tell someone else what is "moral" and what is "immoral". Those are matters to be decided by one's personal beliefs.

That is moral relativism at it's worst, something us liberals get accused of left and right. By your logic, Al Qaeda has every right to fly an airplane into a building because they've suffered a perceived wrong. No! The fact is, they were wrong. Wrong in every sense of the word. I would argue all deliberate taking of life is, at it's very base, wrong. Sure, you have just war theory (which I think is a pile of shit, and that's the terminology I used to describe it to my theology prof back in the day), but even that acknowledges the basic "wrongness" of taking another person's life, in this case, for some greater good.


Better the fetus should live even if the mother dies is not going to withstand the courts.

I'm a great believer in destiny, and while this view is solely personal, and something I would never advocate being put into law, I would agree with the above statement. I believe the classic case the anti-abortionist uses, is the case of the woman and her husband, the husband being blind from glaucoma, the woman being afflicted with syphillis. The first child is born blind, the second and third are born dead, and the woman gets pregnant nearing 40 with her 4th child, a very risky pregnancy during which there is a great chance of complications. Any competent doctor would suggest an abortion - and any competent doctor would have succeeded in killing Beethoven, instead of his mother. It's an unfair example, and it's a sticky theological debate on the value of life, but ultimately I believe that we're meant to go, when we're meant to go.


however we do not live in an ideal world and we never will.

A) It is that attitude which ensures it never will. We have enough food in the world to make sure no one in the world would ever go hungry - but it is the attitude of "We cannot solve hunger" that makes hunger still an issue.
B) I never said we needed an ideal world. Society changes its views all the time. Slowly, albeit, and surely not in our lifetime - but as Oscar Romero said, "We harvest the crops of those that came before, and we plant the seeds for those yet to come."


Moving on - Ed's post is why I disdain the pro-life movement more than the pro-choice movement, despite being pro-life. At least the pro-choice people aren't really hypocrites (unless you drag in that whole death penalty thing in the mix).


What're your feelings on overpopulation?

I think A) There is space, we just tend to cluster in cities. I used to live in upstate NY, if all of NYC spread out to the rest of the state, there's be less than 10 people per square mile, or something.

B) Overpopulation wouldn't be so much of an issue if we took care of the problems it caused, like overconsumption of non-renewable resources, pollution, sanitation, etc, etc, and so forth.

C) (and this is the main point) I fear human beings have overstepped their bounds. Hardy-Weinberg, a neat little theory, made by humans, have human beings as it's only exception. We have not reached an equilibrium, because, for every earthquake in India which kills 30 thousand people, 300,000 more are being born. I was blown away by that bit in the Matrix about human beings being like viruses, I think it's true, in a sense. Inherently, an unevil thing that, through it's nature, does evil acts (destroying its environment). Hell, my handle is TheEschaton, truly because I believe that at some point, things will break, and something cataclysmic can and will happen, if things are not changed.

I can see the point you're driving at, but I don't see overpopulation as being a valid reason for voluntarily killing people (in this case, babies).


You do not have to actually experience it, but how about to even have the possibility of that?

My opinion is that it is man's greatest misfortune to not have children. Women, in having a baby, are doing that which we consider to be a power of God - creating life, and nurturing it. Hell, that's why all the old religions are based around the woman, as the fertile, sacred being who sustained and gave life. Obviously, I'll never be a woman or give birth, or have to carry a baby to term, but as I said earlier - a rich man doesn't need to be poor first, to empathize with the poor (read some Gustavo Guitierrez, Liberation Theology, it's all there!). It helps, to be sure, but it is not a necessity.

I need a separate paragraph here because I think that's what's wrong with all equality movements in the world. Each side thinks the other side can never know, and, in thinking that, never allow the other side to know. Women fight for women's rights, saying men can never experience what it is to "be woman" (which is true), but then go on to assume that because man cannot be woman, they can never understand women. It's hard, but it can be done, guys! The same goes for the black equality movement, gay rights, anything. And, it goes for the converse side, too, the male, white, straight people as well. /rant

I took a lot of sociology, theology, and philosophy in college, and Miss X, I'd have to disagree with the core of the interpretivist view, that you cannot understand a person til you're in their shoes. Empathy is not based on common experience, but on a common humanity. I feel pain, for example, over the people dying in 9/11, not because I was in their shoes, or knew anyone in their shoes, or could ever understand that sort of horror, but because I am a human being, and because they are my fellow human beings.

That last paragraph is brought to you by Bruce Coville's My Teacher is an Alien series. If you want some intriguing thoughts on humanity, read the last book, My Teacher Flunked the Planet. It's a young teen's book, but it still sticks with me to this day.

And....I think this post is done. Bring it on.

-TheE-

[Scott]

If I hadn't met you in Gemstone, I would have thought you were Besette! To much information!

On that note, good points. I really don't care what someone else does with the child. I wish abortion would be used less frequently for no reason, but unfortunately, some cases abortion is needed. I'm not going to step on someone's toes if they don't want to take care of the child and stay healthy when the baby is inside her.

[Miss X]

I think it all comes down to your own personal morals. When I was younger at school I was actively participating in pro-life campaigns however as soon as I started studying sociology my opinion changed drastically because I started to realise that every individual should be treated as precisely that; an individual that is unique in every aspect.

My concern shifted its attentions from the unborn child to the woman struggling with making what is likely to be the hardest decision of her life.

Of course it is the unborn children that pay for mistakes made but I think here is where the disagreement lies. I view the woman's life and mental/physical health to be more important than that of the foetus, so therefore I have little or no problem with woman who decide abortion is right for them. Yes, it may be selfish at times but it is the women that is going through the pregnancy, if she really doesn't want it, I am not going to be the one standing in her way telling her she has no choice.

[Edited on 16-2-04 by Miss X]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
That brings up the whole idealism vs. reality debate. I say we should always shoot for idealism, because it'll never happen, if you don't try for it, or think it's impossible. A fight is lost as soon as you say, "I have no chance of beating this guy".

Heh. I hear you. I shall always shoot for idealism, TheE. However, I have the misfortune to be required to LIVE in reality. I can hope, wish and dream, but I must still cope in the here and now.


That is moral relativism at it's worst, something us liberals get accused of left and right. By your logic, Al Qaeda has every right to fly an airplane into a building because they've suffered a perceived wrong. No! The fact is, they were wrong. Wrong in every sense of the word.

We agree. You find what Al Qaeda did wrong. So do I. Question is, do those who perpetrated that act find it wrong? I cannot say. I do not know what their thinking was to bring them to perpetrate such a hideous act. I, like most of the world, condemn that act. Yet, I must leave open the possibility that there are those who see it differently than I do, and that they may find my viewpoint just as confuddling as I find theirs to be.

Additionally, when Al Quaeda decided to take down a building full of living, breathing, walking, talking individuals, they put themselves at the mercy of our societal views on the subject, thereby rendering their beliefs null and void when it comes to answering for the deed.

HarmNone

*Edited to add a last thought, and to change "hear" to "here"*

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by HarmNone]

[TheEschaton]

For some, abortion is a method of birth control. However, those individuals (both the male and the female) were irresponsible quite awhile before they decided to abort. Otherwise, no pregnancy would exist and there would be no need to consider abortion. The problem asserts itself long before abortion becomes the issue.

First, I think it's for more than some. Having done social work in my life, I had clients all the time who would have abortions not because they didn't want kids, just that they didn't want them now.

That is why the main thrust of my argument is responsibility in sex, responsibility in society, responsibility in life. This country has flown far, far away from responsibility in an effort to live forever, have as much fun as possible, and as fast as they can. That's why people are so afraid of dying, and that's why, ironically, people are willing to abort a baby. Both put a damper on our own selfish needs, one permanently, one for at least 18 years.

Lastly, even if two people are irresponsible - that basic thing you learned in kindergarten applies: Two wrongs do not make a right. It's one of the foundations morality lies on (and another reason why I think just war theory is crap).


if you think the answer is yes, than he question becomes when did you get your soul? was it at conception? 10 seconds later? 9 months later? your first breath? willing to bet someone else's soul you know the mind of god in this matter?

This is a classic case of Pascal's "Wager", except applied to abortion. Pascal's Wager says we cannot (in this life at least) empirically prove the existence of God. So, if you can't prove it, it's a matter of faith. You can either believe, or not believe.

If you believe, and there is a God, you go to Heaven, while, if you believe and there's not a God, there's no big deal, you're dead.

If you don't believe, and there is no God, there's no big deal, you're dead. If you don't believe, and there IS a God, you risk Hell.

Apply that to the abortion question, as to when a human being has a soul or not, and we'll go with our dichotomy being "from conception" and "from birth", and our act of belief as to whether you abort or not.

If you abort, and the soul is inherent from childbirth - no big deal, you've not killed anything important (theoretically, from this standpoint). If you abort and the soul is inherent from conception, you've just killed a human being.

If you don't abort - it doesn't matter, you haven't killed anything.

So, just like Blaise Pascal's Wager says it is better to believe in God lest there actually be one who cares, it is better (logically and empirically) not to abort, lest the soul be inherent from conception.

Philosophy, it's all basic philosophy and theology.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
No one can understand another person completely. Can no one help each other?Go check out Blues Brothers 2000, there's a whole speech like that (from James Brown).

Additionally, I maintain that nobody can tell someone else what is "moral" and what is "immoral". Those are matters to be decided by one's personal beliefs. That is moral relativism at it's worst,It sounds like Klaveism to me.:whistle:
I'm a great believer in destiny,Blech.
I was blown away by that bit in the Matrix about human beings being like viruses, I think it's true, in a sense.We're mammals. Not viruses. It's biology. If you want to look at it on societal terms or whatever, that's fine, but (one of) the things that pissed me off about that movie was that psuedo-biological nonsense.

My opinion is that it is man's greatest misfortune to not have children.I'd say it's the idea of possession, but I like Man of La Mancha.
I need a separate paragraph here because I think that's what's wrong with all equality movements in the world. They're wrong because they encourage seperation (or segregation, if you prefer). Melting pot is good. Salad bowl is bad.
Bring it on.I tried my best. :D

Also, what makes a person a person is the mind/soul. And it's impossible to tell if anyone or anything else besides you has a mind or soul (solipsism, to keep up with theE's bigwords quota), thus one should take care about destroying that which is around them.

edit: Ignore that last paragraph, teh E said it much better.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[TheEschaton]

We agree. You find what Al Qaeda did wrong. So do I. Question is, do those who perpetrated that act find it wrong? I cannot say. I do not know what their thinking was to bring them to perpetrate such a hideous act. I, like most of the world, condemn that act. Yet, I must leave open the possibility that there are those who see it differently than I do, and that they may find my viewpoint just as confuddling as I find theirs to be.

But that does not make them right, even if they think they are.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Umm, I do not recall anyone ever saying they were right, TheE... at least, according to our measures of right versus wrong. In the very paragraph you quoted, I stated that I thought they were wrong. Eeeeeasy, theah, hoss. ;)

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

My concern shifted its attentions from the unborn child to the woman struggling with making what is likely to be the hardest decision of her life.

Believe me, I sympathize with the woman. On a sidebar, The Girl That Got Away (tm), who I'm so desperately, madly in love with, is modern feminist, Ani DiFranco listening, pro-choice, and an atheist. I try to empathize, through her. However, to me, the fact that so many (and I'd be willing to say the majority) women have to struggle with this, the fact that so many women need post abortion counseling, and things like that, is indicative of the essential wrongness of the thing. I fear I'm going to have to write my thing on choice versus life tonight, because the thoughts are running around mad in my head, screaming to be put on paper.


Of course it is the unborn children that pay for mistakes made but I think here is where the disagreement lies. I view the woman's life and mental/physical health to be more important than that of the foetus, so therefore I have little or no problem with woman who decide abortion is right for them. Yes, it may be selfish at times but it is the women that is going through the pregnancy, if she really doesn't want it,

Even viewing it from a completely legal point of view - our rights only extend so much, insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of OTHERS. This is why I can't arbitrarily decide to choose that my right to worship includes kidnapping little hispanic girls, and raping/killing them. This is why my right to free speech does not mean I can verbally harass someone else.

There's even a hierarchical order, that being 1) life, 2) liberty, and 3) pursuit of happiness. Abortion, from the woman's POV, is a 3rd tier right (at best a 2nd tier one if you argue the sociological "slavery" of a woman to her child) trying to pre-empt a 1st tier right. Even in the rare cases where a mother's life is at risk, your right to live, in my opinion, does not supercede another's right to live either. But I'm a pacifist, so I don't believe in self-defense and things like that.... ;) At best, if you reject pacificism (and why would you? ;) ) women should only be allowed to consider abortion from a right to live on their part POV.

-TheE-
P.S. Latrin, I didn't mean we were literally viruses, but we behave, on a societal level, like them.

[TheEschaton]

Umm, I do not recall anyone ever saying they were right, TheE... at least, according to our measures of right versus wrong. In the very paragraph you quoted, I stated that I thought they were wrong. Eeeeeasy, theah, hoss.

Your whole argument on why abortion should be allowed is that even if you think it is wrong, other people might have a different perspective on it. I argue that irrespective of perspective, something can be deemed as ultimately wrong, or ultimately right.

In saying that "I must leave open the possibility that there are those who see it differently than I do, and that they may find my viewpoint just as confuddling as I find theirs to be", it lends a relativism to the morality of the act.

I agree that other people have a different perspective. I also agree that it's their right to have a different perspective. That doesn't change the essential right or wrongness of it though. The problem is, is that we both think we're right (both U.S. vs Al Qaeda, and abortion vs anti-abortion) and the tough middle ground is finding the absolute rightness/wrongness of a situation without being biased.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Heh. I do not believe that one can assign an absolute rightness/wrongness to a situation WITHOUT being biased. ;)

And with that, I shall withdraw from this discussion. My opinions will not change, nor will the opinions of those who feel differently about these issues. To argue endlessly is counterproductive, from my point of view.

HarmNone

[Miss X]

Regarding rightness/wrongness I am of the opinion that it is ultimately subjective. Norms and values are learnt from the institutions in the society you live in: School, family, the church etc. Now, I am fairly sure as a group we all believe the actions of Al Qaeda to be morally wrong however just as we are so adamant in our belief that such actions are terrible and unjust, Al Qaeda believe they are necessary and justified.

Lets say you believe Osama to be 100% immoral and evil and he believes the US to be 100% immoral and evil, who is to say one opinion is right and one is wrong because both have such strong points of view. We believe he is wrong because of what our society has told us, he is in the same position.

That is basically why I believe all ideas of rightness and wrongness are purely subjective. A clear-cut decision can never be made.

[TheEschaton]

Regarding rightness/wrongness I am of the opinion that it is ultimately subjective.

So we cannot even agree that willfully killing a person who is innocent of committing any wrongdoing is morally wrong?

Because that's what your whole argument boils down to: Because Osama bin Laden has been influenced by his life and perceived oppression (which may very well be true), he is allowed to take action against it, because his viewpoint forces him to?

No one is forced by anything. Guns don't kill people, people do. I'm sure you've heard all the cliches.

We are responsible for our actions. Sure, our environments, how we grew up, etc, and so forth, can help others understand our choices, but we are ultimately responsible for them.

Your argument says that context is solely responsible. Context is solely responsible only when a person is psychologically insane, and not in control of their senses.

[Edited to make "sane" into "insane".]

If I was abused my whole life, sexually, by my father, does that allow me to sexually assault my son? Context says that most men who abuse their children sexually, were themselves abused, but that does not make it excusable.

I will agree, many things are subjective. I think the willful taking of an innocent person's life is one of those that is not.

-TheE-

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by TheEschaton]

I'm pro- life. I'm completely for children going up with the basic neccessities and growing up with parents who are responsibile and capable of taking care of them.

I'd rather die myself then let anybody go through the shit i did as a kid.

[HarmNone]

Well said, RangerD1. Very well said. :)

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

And then someone comes along, and sums up your whole dissertation in a sentence. Damn you Ranger... ;)

Brevity is wit, they say, which means I'm about as dull as a rock.

-TheE-

[Xcalibur]

If they could remove the phoetus from the mother's womb? (belly) and put it in an artificial uterus and bring it to term, I'd say NO to aborption.

Saying 6% of aborptions are made because of rape and/or risks of wounds to the woman DOESN'T take the fact that a pregnancy is NINE months and not only 1-2-3 (thinks it's 3 months for normal aborption).

Many many women died giving birth, what do you think they would do if they knew that?

And their husbands?

And their children?

Aborption is not anyone's business but the one deciding to do it.

You know, i have no problems with people who had happy homes and lived a life of privledge. However, I can't really speak for most of the people i grew up with. I feel its not my place to hate somebody else because they were luckier in the lottery of life, but what i do hate is the clueless bastards who try and tell me that "It wasn't all that bad" or that i had the same advantages\opprutunties they had. Which is just plain bullshit.

I try and do my part to help mitigate the situation (by not fucking everything that moves like i'd like to), but if shit happens and i impregnant someone i don't want that child to have to grow up without basic shit, like heat, lights and food nor do i want that kid running the streets at 15 just to get by like i was. If you got a problem with that, thats too fucking bad. Unless your gonna take the baby and give it a decent life then fuck off. And no adoption is not an acceptable option. Anyone who says that has never dealt with the child welfare system. It works for some people and for others it leaves them out in the cold.

[Hulkein]

Rather left out in the cold then dead. Yeah, you can say hypothetically that it'd be better to be dead, but it's no ones right to make that decision for someone else. You say yourself you wouldn't want a kid to grow up in your position.. Why? What if you become a war general or do something important, why would you want to rob a kid of that just because hypothetically they'd have a rough life? It's pretty obvious your on your way to being successful, why deprive others of it? Now I can't say that I grew up in poverty but I grew up pretty much in the city of philadelphia and it wasn't a nice part.. No I wasn't hungry but I'm not sheltered to what life can be like. I have like 40 first cousins (all on one side) and my mom has 13 brothers and sisters. A lot of my family is poor and is hungry but you know what? I'm sure each one of them would choose life over a grave. I don't know, my main point is it isn't anyones choice to deprive innocent life.


[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

I think it's an unfortunate attitude to say that just because someone grows up with poor parents, or has to live a youth of endurance and hardships, that their life is not worth having. That's why I'm against the idea that just because someone's parents are poor or that the child will live a youth of hardships, that they're better off dead.

Some of the greatest historical figures came from the poorest of families. Being poor is no reason to terminate a child.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Kranar]

[Skirmisher]

Hulkein, the problem with so many people in this country is that they simply cannot conceive of what true poverty and deprivation can be.

That helps them make decisions for others who just do not live in the same world they do. There was just another case a few months ago here in NJ that was well publicised.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/jackson/

The simple answer that adoption will take care of all the children created by outlawing abortion is so incredibly shortsited when you are forced to realize the system cannot handle the number of children inow gets. Imagine the deluge it would have to try to be responsible for if all the immense numbers of children that would have been aborted as anti abortion activists are so loud to proclaim were to suddenly be dropped into this already failing system.

[TheEschaton]

Forgive me if I'm a little liberal with the stereotypes here, but women tend to generally be more nurturing and life-affirming than men. Men tend to, like Dennis Leary said, like war, and willingly sit in front of CNN with a six foot erection with a cheeseburger on the end of it, during a war.

Given that stereotype - why do we see such a polarization of women being pro-choice, and the majority of pro-lifers being men?

Are women not nurturing by nature? Are men more sensitive than we thought? If there was some truth to these stereotypes, wouldn't men just not give a fuck? Wouldn't women happily have babies and consider them a blessing?

Has modern society and its superficial goals of wealth, beauty, youth, career, sex, and instant gratification destroyed the basic respect for life, sanctity of each moment, the magic of our times? My favorite sort of modern writer is Stephen King, and he once wrote in one of his prefaces that life was all about seeing the magic around our own lives, and that's where the motivation for his own books came....the simple magic that made our lives stupendous.

It's really amazing, every time I go back to India (we go every 3 years or so, I was there last December), I see death, and disease, and poverty, and the dregs of human existence. And yet the.....beauty of their life is readily apparent, because they embrace each moment and live it laughing.

Food for thought. It's definately time for bed, when I start waxing philosophical.

"The greatest flaw of modern man is that he cannot simply sit still, by himself, completely silent, for 5 minutes."
~Blaise Pascal

-TheEschatonIsComing-

[Hulkein]

Yeah, you're right Skirm that some are so far below the poverty line that no one should live like that, but there are two things. One, most people that poor don't ever go to get an abortion, that's why you see single parents with 9 kids from 7 different fathers. No, I don't have facts, but from personal observation (I do plumming in the section 8 houses in Upper Darby around 69th street and North Philly). Second, it really isn't our place, I'm sorry, we don't have the right to decide whether a kid should live under almost any circumstance.

[imported_Kranar]

<< The simple answer that adoption will take care of all the children created by outlawing abortion is so incredibly shortsited when you are forced to realize the system cannot handle the number of children inow gets. >>

And we're arguing that the even simpler answer that killing a child just because some irresponsible parent can't take care of it is not only shortsighted, but speaks volumes about how we value life.

If pro-choicers want to argue that abortion is a nessecary evil because the system is broken or whatnot, then so be it. But they must first acknowledge that abortion is evil to begin with.

[TheEschaton]

Hulkein, the problem with so many people in this country is that they simply cannot conceive of what true poverty and deprivation can be.

I used to work on the east side of Buffalo, which is straight up ghetto. Everyone I ever met there was appalled by the idea of abortion, because they came from a strong religious community. And every one of them adored their children.

It is those of privilege, oddly enough, that fight for abortion. The middle class doesn't fight for abortion. At least not amongst the minorities, I can't say I know much about white people.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I used to work on the east side of Buffalo, which is straight up ghetto. Everyone I ever met there was appalled by the idea of abortion, because they came from a strong religious community. And every one of them adored their children.

It is those of privilege, oddly enough, that fight for abortion. The middle class doesn't fight for abortion. At least not amongst the minorities, I can't say I know much about white people.

-TheE-

Are you saying that the children born in incredibly underpriviledged areas are the lucky ones? They grow up amongst all that love, it sounds like a paradise.

Somehow I think you might be looking at things with a bit of the rose colored glasses syndrome.

[TheEschaton]

Edited to say: I've been poor, I've been middle class, I've been upper class. And never was there a reason to have an abortion. The fear of suffering - that's another hangup of Americans. I find God in suffering.

"I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."


-TheE-

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

I'll tell you now, I'd rather be still living on Walnut Street, in South Philly,
-TheE-

Walnut Street doesn't really run through South Philly. =) Otherwise good post.

Why would i not want somebody to through what i did if i have the possibility of being successful? Good question. The answer is simple, because i was lucky. I had advantages that alot of my peers did not and there was many times that by a coin flip i wouldn't be here today.

I don't want my kids to end up like Ray-ray My best friend who had his own hid at 18 and then got shot 17 times trying to visit him on fathers day.

I don't want him to end up like Tavonne who got shot 3 times in the chest outside of our highschool sticking up for a girl who was getting beat by an asshole.

I don't want him to end up like Jajuan who got shot in the head minding his business.

I don't want him to end up like my friend Point who is serving 15-30 years in prison. '

Or my buddy's brother who got set up and is serving 28 to life.

Or another dude who'se name i didn't even know who got shot cause he had the balls to help me out when i was getting jumped on.

I don't want him to be one of those kids running around pumping gas for change at 1 am in 20 degree whether with a stolen windbreaker on .

I don't want him to have to live with the pain i do everyday for being the one who got out while most everyone i know is still sitting behind in that hell hole, and because no matter how hard i try i can't do shit about it.

Are you beginning to get the idea? Cause i can keep going.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar
And we're arguing that the even simpler answer that killing a child just because some irresponsible parent can't take care of it is not only shortsighted, but speaks volumes about how we value life.

If pro-choicers want to argue that abortion is a nessecary evil because the system is broken or whatnot, then so be it. But they must first acknowledge that abortion is evil to begin with.

Kranar of course abortion is not a desired thing, but a necessary one. I view it to some extent like the cutting off of a limb to save the body. It is a painful decision made for the good of the whole.

Please do not make the error of thinking that I have come to my decision on this matter lightly.

If the systems that exist were to be repaired to the point where the additional children that would be born could be assured of having a good life I think you would have me on your side. I do not see that happeneing any time soon but we can hope I guess.

[TheEschaton]

Center City, South Philly, whatever whatever. It was right near the old UPenn campus (where said father slogged through Wharton), I haven't been back there in forever, damn it!

Someone told me the other day that Spruce ran through S. Philly, which confused me, as I had always thought it was Center City.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Heh, Wharton Street, that's south philly. It's also the street to Pat's Cheesesteaks :cool:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Hulkein]

[Hulkein]

Yeah man I understand where you're coming from, but obviously abortion isn't a solution for those problems because abortion was available to all of your friends parents, but they still had to go through the pain they did. That is my point. Abortion is legal, yet you still have all these people every day living in a shit hole and getting killed for stupid reasons. You lived in the city during your childhood, honestly how many abortions did the families you know have?



Originally posted by RangerD1
Why would i not want somebody to through what i did if i have the possibility of being successful? Good question. The answer is simple, because i was lucky. I had advantages that alot of my peers did not and there was many times that by a coin flip i wouldn't be here today.

I don't want my kids to end up like Ray-ray My best friend who had his own hid at 18 and then got shot 17 times trying to visit him on fathers day.

I don't want him to end up like Tavonne who got shot 3 times in the chest outside of our highschool sticking up for a girl who was getting beat by an asshole.

I don't want him to end up like Jajuan who got shot in the head minding his business.

I don't want him to end up like my friend Point who is serving 15-30 years in prison. '

Or my buddy's brother who got set up and is serving 28 to life.

Or another dude who'se name i didn't even know who got shot cause he had the balls to help me out when i was getting jumped on.

I don't want him to be one of those kids running around pumping gas for change at 1 am in 20 degree whether with a stolen windbreaker on .

I don't want him to have to live with the pain i do everyday for being the one who got out while most everyone i know is still sitting behind in that hell hole, and because no matter how hard i try i can't do shit about it.

Are you beginning to get the idea? Cause i can keep going.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

My father was in Wharton, the business school at UPenn, not on Wharton street... ;)

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Damn you!

Alot actually. Yea, and i'm right there with Skirm, when and if there is a system in place that can realisticly care for these children then i will change my stance on the matter.

[TheEschaton]

"It has to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"

Do I even need to go into "If you settle for nothing now, you'll settle for nothing later. If you don't take action now - you won't take action later"?

Edited to add: Is it worse to suffer in life indescribably, but be alive, or is it worse to be killed before you can know that pain? And then to describe it basically as a merciful act, to kill that person before they can feel that pain? That's the question I had in the long, rambling post I had which probably no one read all the way through. I say it is better to suffer, and be alive, because then you have a chance. To be dead is to have no chance.

-TheE-

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by TheEschaton]

Possibly, but then again is it worse to be alive and have no chance? I understand what your saying, but for someone whos been through alot of rough shit, you know how i feel.

[Hulkein]

I'm just surprised that seeing as how you've made it through it all you'd still say you wish you were aborted. It's not an accident you lived through everything, I don't believe that. There's a reason why you made it, and there's a reason why people make it through tough shit. To fix the situation. Continuing a practice that doesn't look to be stopping crime or killings in the city doesn't seem like the best way for that.

Are you referencing god?

[Hulkein]

Nah not necassarily, don't think most religions believe in fate. I'm just giving my opinions.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Hulkein]

So whats this reason your talking about.

I can give you the reasons why i was able to make it out and the reasons why i'm the person i am. But they are quite unique, so i'm not a good example.

[TheEschaton]

To be alive and have no chance is a contradiction in terms. Life always finds a way.


"I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.

I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.

I believe that even amid today's motor bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.

"And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid."

I still believe that we shall overcome."

-TheE-

To be alive and have no chance is a contradiction in terms. Life always finds a way.

The only thing life always finds a way to do is Die. Death is the only certainty in life. To beleive anything else is too idealistic for any rational discussion. What you refuse to believe or accept has no bearing on the realities of life.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by RangerD1]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Miss X
We believe he is wrong because of what our society has told us, he is in the same position.

That is basically why I believe all ideas of rightness and wrongness are purely subjective. A clear-cut decision can never be made. God says Osama did a bad thing. I could care less what society says. He's Osama's God too. Thus, Osama has no legs to stand upon in a moral debate.
Originally posted by Skirmisher
Imagine the deluge it would have to try to be responsible for if all the immense numbers of children that would have been aborted as anti abortion activists are so loud to proclaim were to suddenly be dropped into this already failing system. Imagine if people could keep their pants on for five minutes. The result of sex is pregnancy. You (general) can try to sneak around it if you want, but it's what it's for. Sex makes babies. And the idea that it's ok to kill a defenseless infant because you can't keep your zipper up is noxious to the extreme.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
God says Osama did a bad thing. I could care less what society says. He's Osama's God too. Thus, Osama has no legs to stand upon in a moral debate.

And believe me I would not agree with him, but he would come right back at you that his god did indeed want him to commit that act. You would go back and forth with no one able to disprove the other.


Originally posted by Skirmisher
Imagine the deluge it would have to try to be responsible for if all the immense numbers of children that would have been aborted as anti abortion activists are so loud to proclaim were to suddenly be dropped into this already failing system. Imagine if people could keep their pants on for five minutes. The result of sex is pregnancy. You (general) can try to sneak around it if you want, but it's what it's for. Sex makes babies. And the idea that it's ok to kill a defenseless infant because you can't keep your zipper up is noxious to the extreme. [/quote]

Sounds good, it is not something we as humans have ever seen in all of our existance, but dare to dream.

[Edaarin]

Don't you dare start putting your God on other people. Not even Osama. That's where the shit starts.

EDIT: Sob stories aside, I still haven't heard anyone propose a way to deal with the million-odd babies that would be born every year.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Edaarin]

[Edaarin]

EDIT: Man, I post stupid shit when I'm half awake.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Edaarin]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Off topic, but just wanted to say this...

I admire folks that take the shit that life has flung them and make it, clawing and fighting sometimes. It's corny and pretty much an obvious statement, but the character(s) built by lifes challenges are to be admired.

And as a casual observer, I think there are a few of those folks that post here.

[TheEschaton]

And believe me I would not agree with him, but he would come right back at you that his god did indeed want him to commit that act. You would go back and forth with no one able to disprove the other.

Having read the Quran, I can tell you it is a much less violent book, and Islam a much less violent religion, than the Bible and Christianity, respectively. But every religion has its fundamentalists who are willing to twist words. The Islamic jihad, as written in the Quran, is figurative language for a conversion of the soul, so, it is much like Christianity's message to preach the word.


The only thing life always finds a way to do is Die. Death is the only certainty in life. To beleive anything else is too idealistic for any rational discussion. What you refuse to believe or accept has no bearing on the realities of life.

I think that's bull. What you believe does have bearing on the realities of life. I think most of the problems in the world arise from a collective psychosis, an inability to think correctly, or have the right attitude. Poverty, hunger, AIDS in Africa, polio, all these things could be eradicted - but we just throw our hands up and say "We can't!" and that's what makes it impossible.

There is another certainty in life. If you don't try, if you don't believe....it'll never happen. If you believe, and you try, it's not a guarantee, but it might happen. That's called hope, and it's what lies at the bottom of Pandora's box, and, as the Shawshank Redemption says, "It's a good thing....maybe the best of things."

I'm sick of people who say it can't be done. I want to go into politics, in Buffalo, being a white collar immigrant in a blue collar, known-to-be-stereotypical town. They say that my hair is too long, that my politics don't line up with any one party and thus I won't get any major party support, that people won't listen to an Indian in such a white community, that it was hopeless to be so radical and so idealistic in Buffalo, a town which saw a recession even during the Clinton years. But my father, being a Goan and a Christian, and thus hated by his fellow Indians, was told constantly how he would never grow up to be anything, how he was worthless and a British sympathizer just because he was Christian (forget that it was the Portuguese who converted my family). And he let that fuel his sheer determination.

Don't tell me guts don't count. That belief can't change anything. Because I know it's not true.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Originally posted by Edaarin
He'd work his main job for the night shift so he could at least drive me to school, and for a long time aside from the weekend that was the only contact I had with him because he'd be asleep all of Saturday.

Why do you think I'm a rabid Bills fan? The only time I would see my father is on Sundays, when we went to Mass, and then he and I would kick back and watch the game. It was the only time I spent with my father. My mother worked too, she still works, she's a social worker and going to class to this day, that's how disaffected she is.. ;) As soon as my sister was in Kindergarten, she went back to work. I taught myself to read, and I taught my sister how to read. I always did my own homework, and I read myself to sleep.


But you know what? Not having them around ever, I lost out on something special. I basically taught myself everything, with my sister and my brother as tutors from time to time until I was in 5th grade, and then from there on out it was all me. I lost the ability to speak any Viet, and my parents refused to learn English, so I was out in the cold there as well. Ever know what it's like not to talk to your parents? Ever call home and have a 30 second convo? That's the way it is every day with me. The way I was brought up is a defining characteristic of who I am, and I wouldn't trade places with you or anyone else.

That's the point I'm saying. I never learned Hindi, but at least my parents spoke English. All for what? The American Dream? That's a lie, the American Dream doesn't give happiness, nor does the pursuit of it.

Anyways, I'm tired of this, cause it'll quickly turn into a pissing into the wind match, and I don't want it to. I still don't think poverty is a valid reason for abortion, nor do I think the pursuit of the American Dream is a valid reason either. The only reason I brought up my background, was to justify why I don't think being poor justifies abortion. In fact, I'm editing it out right about now.

-TheE-

Do what you do. Doesn't change the facts of life.

[TheEschaton]

I'm guessing you don't believe that we control our own destiny, then, eh?

Bah.

-TheE-

I believe that all you can do is make the best of what you can. However, i'm not so idealistic to believe that if life decides to take a fucking shit on your chest, that life is gonna take a shit on your chest. I've seen too many good people not make to believe that everything is fair in this world.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Don't you dare start putting your God on other people. Not even Osama. That's where the shit starts.Osama is a Muslim. Muslims believe in the same God as Christians. I am a Christian. It's not really that big a deal.
EDIT: Sob stories aside, I still haven't heard anyone propose a way to deal with the million-odd babies that would be born every year.The solution is don't have the babies conceived, as I already said. It's like Eschaton's always saying about personal responsibility. If you can't deal with the consequences, don't do the actions.

[HarmNone]

Having lived amongst Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Iran, I can tell you that some Muslims do not believe that Allah equates with the Christian God. It is not true of all Muslims, but is IS true of some. :)

As for those persons who are not prepared to be responsible for the children they produce, yet have those children anyway... well, we as a society have been trying every means we can think of to combat that problem for as long as I can remember. We have yet to beat it. That is reality.

HarmNone

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
well, we as a society have been trying every means we can think of to combat that problem for as long as I can remember. We have yet to beat it. That is reality.It's very difficult to win a fight with one hand tied behind your back. I look at society and I see very little in terms of responsibility promotion. I see quite a bit of instant gratification and immortality illusions. Maybe American society is more fragmented than I thought.

[HarmNone]

I agree, Latrinsorm. I see these things, too. Now, how do we combat this? What do we do to make it better? So far, all of our efforts have been futile.

HarmNone

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Neuter all fathers of welfare babies where said babies are greater than 1.

That would get my tax money in a heartbeat.

Maybe human beings are what you expect them to be.

[Bobmuhthol]

Shoot all idiots.

That would get the world a lot smaller in population.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Shoot all idiots.

That would get the world a lot smaller in population.

that's comments like that that makes you an idiot.

Soon, anyway, people will need a certificate to have children, that's no science-fiction.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Shoot all idiots.

That would get the world a lot smaller in population. "The problem with america is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - Dennis Miller

And Harm, the way I thought up was to get rid of government, timekeeping, and money. But the whole world has to do it simultaneously, otherwise some mean guy will take over and we'll be worse off. Also big walls everywhere. That's more a fixall solution than for this particular problem, though.

Step 1: Pistol whip everyone on Friends (except Rachel, she's hot)

Step 2: No more sleaze in the media.

Step 3: No more advertising. Of any product. Anywhere. (That means no more gifs of classic video games, X, sorry)

Then I guess we could throw in some quasi-socialism. I dunno, I'm not very coherent today. 3-day weekends really take it out of me.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Step 1: Pistol whip everyone on Friends (except Rachel, she's hot)>>

I read that as, "Pistol whip everyone's friends (except Rachel, she's hot)" and I almost, ALMOST thought you were stalking me or something and proceeded to ALMOST break something.

[Skirmisher]

We need a photo of Rachel!

[HarmNone]

Heh. While your ideas are wonderful, for the most part, Latrinsorm, the problem presents itself in the doing. How do you propose to get the whole world to cooperate with these "golden plans"? Throughout history the nations of the world have killed each other for a great deal less gain than we are discussing here.

HarmNone

[Mint]

Originally posted by RangerD1

To be alive and have no chance is a contradiction in terms. Life always finds a way.

The only thing life always finds a way to do is Die. Death is the only certainty in life.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by RangerD1]

You forgot taxes. My grandmother was the one that gave me 'the birds and bees' lecture. She said a bunch of stuff but also: 'prochoice means CHOOSING responsible birth control and USING it religiously'

Edited to add: In case there is any doubt I am opposed to abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother.


[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Mint]

[Hulkein]

I can tell you what won't solve the problem. Terminating kids. Hehe, sorry not in the mood to try and solve the worlds problems.

[Kia]

I used to be pro-choice. I figured, its my body, I'll do what I want with it.

But then I grew up and realized its not all about me.

I'm pro-life, for the most part.

If the doctor determines the woman will not make it to term or something serious like that, obviously something has to be done. But a lot of women use abortion as birth control and that is messed up. Sure, there are always extenuating circumstances, but for the number of abortions in the world, I doubt they're all that extreme.

Although... I will say that a lot of right-wing pro-lifers are very scary people. But that's another topic.

KIA.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Heh. While your ideas are wonderful, for the most part, Latrinsorm, the problem presents itself in the doing. How do you propose to get the whole world to cooperate with these "golden plans"? I thought up a method, but nobody will like it (and I know at least two people will hate it and me) so I'm not gonna say. It's a long shot anyway, so no loss.

What do you mean, for the most part? :squint:

And I can't stalk you, Bob, Tayre keeps getting in the way. :(

[i remember halloween]

we should hold international physical and intellectual tests every few years and kill everyone who isn't in the top 5 billion or whatever.

[Edaarin]

Killing off Alabama will solve nothing. Except for get rid of a lot of Southern people.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Neuter all fathers of welfare babies where said babies are greater than 1.

That would get my tax money in a heartbeat.

:thumbsup: Totally in agreement... except I don't think it should be just the fathers. Do you know how much money that would save? And unwanted/undeserving child births? I can't even imagine.

[Hulkein]

How much does a vasectomy (sp) cost? I know they're reversable too.