quote:

---

The elected officials did not put it to a popular vote, rather they decided that what was in their own people's best intrests was the same as what private intrests (campaign contributors) wanted.

---

quote:

---

There's going to be a lot of women sneaking across the border to other states to have a medical procedure every other woman is entitled to.

---

How is someone entitled to an abortion? I would agree that you could say that someone is entitled to life-saving medicine or care, but an abortion? Rarely is an abortion needed to preserve a mother's life, and that procedure was not banned in South Dakota. Abortions are generally performed to avoid inconveniences or some sort of vaguely defined mental or emotional harm.

Rather than killing the child, there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception and adoption after.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I wonder how much popular outrage there would be if this "representive" leglislature banned guns in such fashion.

Or beer.

Or pickup trucks.

It's a yee-haw state, and it's -unfortunately- going to start a huuuge legal shitstorm once the first doctor is arrested.
Why, it might even (gasp!) force the issue to the Supreme Court!
(an unintended outcome, I'm sure)
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:

quote:

---

The elected officials did not put it to a popular vote, rather they decided that what was in their own people's best intrests was the same as what private intrests (campaign contributors) wanted.

---

The idea of representative democracy is that the will of the people should be carried out by their chosen representatives. If their representatives don't act according to the will of the people, they aren't reelected. As for campaign contributors, no amount of money can reelect a politician who has sufficiently angered his or her constituants.

quote:

---

There's going to be a lot of women sneaking across the border to other states to have a medical procedure every other woman is entitled to.

---

How is someone entitled to an abortion? I would agree that you could say that someone is entitled to life-saving medicine or care, but an abortion? Rarely is an abortion needed to preserve a mother's life, and that procedure was not banned in South Dakota. Abortions are generally performed to avoid inconveniences or some sort of vaguely defined mental or emotional harm.

Rather than killing the child, there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception and adoption after.

---

quote:

---

As to "entitlement", it's her body and (as defined by both science and national law) the thing growing in her is not "a person" for quite some time after conception.

---

quote:

---

After all, it's the menfolk making the decisions as to weither the woman should have the child.

---

quote:

---

In the same way women are entitled to any other medical procedure...

---

quote:

---

So, where's your scientific evidence that an embryo is a sentient person?

---

quote:

---

And, obviously, you can't use the Christian scriptures as that evidence since, one, we're not all Christians...

---

quote:

---

...the bible says the unborn aren't people, too...

---

quote:

---

I honestly can't find any scripture that supports this statement, however Jeremiah 1:5 says: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This verse certainly seems to suggest that the Lord considered Jeremiah to be a person long before he was physically born.

---

quote:

---

should we allow the abortion of those who have already been born?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:
[QUOTE]there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception

---

quote:

---

Really, I cant imagine anyone being so sactimonous as to tell a raped woman she must bear her attacker's child (and be legally/financially liable for the child too!).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:
there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception

---

Not according to Bush there ain't. There's just one - abstinence

---

quote:

---

Little factoid: South Dakota is in the top ten states for not prosecuting deadbeat dads (fathers not paying child support).

---

quote:

---

Adoption is not always an option. I've known fifteen-year-olds who don't want to give their banies up -- but know they can't support them -- end up committing suicide out of a combination of guilt and post-partum depression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:

quote:

---

Really, I cant imagine anyone being so sactimonous as to tell a raped woman she must bear her attacker's child (and be legally/financially liable for the child too!).

---

I do believe that, like cases where a mother's life is in danger, cases of incest and rape may justify an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Abortion for the sake of convenience should not be legal. End of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
This is why I wasn't participating in this thread. Tim posted an opinion on scripture that is easily debatable, and I wanted to make sure that if one interpretation was mentioned, both were. Someone immediately jumps on me and demands my opinion on the subject at large, for no apparent reason. I post a very simple statement, upon which someone ELSE jumps on me, accuses me of saying things I never said, and personally insults me. (While pretending to display restraint in not insulting me, which, I might add, is totally ineffectual when we all know you could have edited the comment out entirely before posting.)

Whatever civil debate might have previously existed at these forums is gone. This mockery of discourse is a perfect example of why nothing ever gets solved any more. Everyone claims objectivity, and just restates their own opinion over and over, louder and louder. Perhaps if you would try TALKING to people, you might learn something. And perhaps something might get solved, instead of it being kicked around for thirty years with everyone getting more and more angry about it.

We don't have to come together and find some sort of middle ground. We can be left disagreeing at the end of the day and still survive as a culture. But if people don't learn to communicate instead of just talking at each other, everyone is screwed.

---

Irresponcible breeding, i.e. Happy fucking, is bad.

Limiting the ability to correct that, since Abstinance doesn't work, is also bad.

Yet the very act of that ability, Abortion, is also bad.


 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Abortion for the sake of convenience should not be legal. End of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Abortion for the sake of convenience should not be legal. End of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
"If you fuck and have a baby. LIVE WITH IT! It's no ones fault but yours [the child] was conceived..."

Except, you know, when it's not. Heard of failing precautions at any time during your life, maybe?

So, bottomline it for us, should people who most probably can't support them be forced to have children they didn't want or plan for to begin with?

---

Ah, but that leads us back to the issue of SIN, and the real reasoning for opposing a woman's right to choose...
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Mr. Beacon may have a somewhat rantish, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of style in expressing it, but the point he brings up is very relevant to at least the religious right's campaigns against abortion in the US.

If they were really interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would be interested in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And, even if it is their belief that abstaining from sex is the only morally proper way to do that, they still know full well that that isn't going to happen. The best way to stop people (particularly teenagers) from getting inadvertently knocked up is to make sure they have contraceptives when (notice I didn't say "if") they have sex.

Instead, the religious right has made it part of their mission to take every opportunity to keep contraceptives out of the hands of those who need it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone giving the subject a moment's thought that such an action will increase the number of undesired pregnancies. And that will increase the number of abortions, whether it's legal or not.

Basically, the people running this movement have given no indication that they actually want to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortions. They've given every indication that they want to tell other people what and what not to do, based upon religious beliefs that the people affected may well think are complete shit.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Add to that the most zealous of the Right are the Born Again Christians.
Like our President.

People who led a wild, sinful life and now regret it to the point where they'll tell everyone else not to have sex, not to drink, not to gamble, etc, because they already did it!

Fuck that noise.

I'd be seriously intrested to see how many of these far-right wingers were virgins when they got married: less than 1% would be my guess, yet, they'll tell everyone else how they should abstain....

Hypocricy aside, do you guys think the Supreme Court wil now strike down Roe vs.Wade?
Most in the Right think not, and that they should have bided their time, but it's been an era of "I cant believe they got away with that shit!" politics...
 

---

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
 
Hello everybody, I have certain views on this controversial issue, and have wondered for some time what other people would think of them. To start, I'll say that I'm an atheist abstaining guy (hell, I don't even date).

Let us consider abortion from an ethical point of view. Clearly, if abortion is murder (not just killing, we kill thousands of bacteria per day and nobody cares ), it should not be allowed, but if it is not murder, then no one should care what happens to the potential abortee.

Now, to determine if it is murder, we must start with certain standards. Killing a newborn is obviously murder, and a fetus a couple hours into being born is essentially identical to a newborn (a living feeling being), so just because a fetus is in the womb, should not prevent it from having rights that a baby has. Thus, aborting a fetus in this very late stage should be considered murder with the full penelty.

On the other side, a newly fertilized egg is one measily cell. The growth potential of the cell is irrelevant, all that matters is its current state (yes, it is "human life", but there is nothing special about that - it is just a worthless phrase). Smashing a handful of individual cells is not destroying a feeling being, so an abortion at this stage is surely acceptable, and preventing it should be illegal interference in other people's business.

The question is, where does one draw the line? When should an abortion be considered murder, and when should it be considered a regular legal activity? I would think that this line should be theoretically drawn at the point where the fetus can be considered a feeling being. I define this precisely as the ability to EXPERIANCE cost and/or gain (this is different from 'good' or 'bad' things happening to the fetus, though this might be obvious ). Though this is a precise definition, it is, of course, extremely difficult to actually determine. One would have to be able to consider questions such as, "Is the fetus in pain? Is the fetus content?". When the fetus' nervous system (including the brain) is sufficiently developed, then it should be able to experiance cost/gain.

Technically, the fetus thingie is called an embryo for the first eight weeks of pregnency. Several sources say that shortly after the embryo becomes a fetus, it can experiance pain, and that at about six weeks the embryo has detectable brainwaves. Therefore, I would say that at about this time is where the line should be drawn between murder and legal activity. Of course, different embryos develop at different rates, so a scientifically determined safety factor (eg, to make sure that an abortion does not take place when the embryo/fetus 'might' be considered a feeling being) is needed to determine the precise nature of the laws in this matter, but I'm not a biologist, so I have no clue on what this would be. I estimate that an abortion would be o.k. for at least a month.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neutrino 123:
Hello everybody, I have certain views on this controversial issue, and have wondered for some time what other people would think of them. To start, I'll say that I'm an atheist abstaining guy (hell, I don't even date).

---

So, you're not getting laid now, but after you die you're fucked?
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
Here are my general thoughts on the subject of abortion. I don't know who agrees with me, but I think I can tell who won't.

Life is the fundamental right. Without it, none of the rest of them pertain.

When you dehumanize someone, it suddenly becomes easy to justify all sorts of crimes against them. Remember the holocaust anyone?

Like it or not, pregnancy is not just about the mother. Ask ANY mother.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Abortion rights has fuck all to do with the holocaust in any way. YOu might as well try to equate it with the Alamo...

Isn't taking away a person's right to govern their own body (particularly one violated by rape) dehumanizing?

What galls me is that what must be such a personal and private choice for any mother is being narrowly defined by men that will never have to make that call.
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
Jason, to me, it has everything to do with the holocaust, because I see unborn babies as possessing the same human rights as you or I.

Reproduction is about creating new life. As soon as that new life is present within the mother, it ceases to be about "her" body, and becomes about "their" bodies. So, no, I don't see making this form of murder illegal dehumanizing in any way.

Jason, it is not a clearly-defined male vs. female issue. It is not as though men are pro-life and women are pro-choice. You seem to suggest that the pro-life position is being imposed by one gender on the other when that is NOT the case.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
As soon as that new life is present within the mother, it ceases to be about "her" body, and becomes about "their" bodies.

I see. And the fact that the mother might not have had any choice in the creation and presence of said life (as in the case of RAPE) should therefore be ignored, then, like this law MANDATES? Tell me, how is that NOT imposing a position?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irishman:
Jason, to me, it has everything to do with the holocaust, because I see unborn babies as possessing the same human rights as you or I.

Reproduction is about creating new life. As soon as that new life is present within the mother, it ceases to be about "her" body, and becomes about "their" bodies. So, no, I don't see making this form of murder illegal dehumanizing in any way.

Jason, it is not a clearly-defined male vs. female issue. It is not as though men are pro-life and women are pro-choice. You seem to suggest that the pro-life position is being imposed by one gender on the other when that is NOT the case.

---

In reverse order:
If it's not the case, then let the women decide wihout us men. Really, I doubt there would be even 10% for taking away a woman's right to choose.
Probably not even 5%.
The fact is that 80% of the leglislature is male (possibly more in South Dakota) and in this case, where no vote is called, it's literally the men making the decision for the women.

Reproduction is indeed about creating new life... sex is not.
People have the choice to create a life, sometimes the precautions against that fail, and when they do, it's sometimes best for an unwanted pregnantcy to be terminated quickly, rather than to allow it to develop into a real, thnking, feeling, person, instead of a collection of cells with that potential.

Lastly, the Holocaust was a delibberate attempt to kill off a select racial group- nothing remotely like that is happening here.
There is no organized abortion conspiracy (despite what the Right may claim).
Only women making the toughest decision possible.
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
Cartman and Jason:

Cartman first:

I haven't been addressing this law. In my view, exceptions must be made when the life of the mother is at stake, and rape and incest.

This position however, puts a hell of a burden on someone to prove rape or incest.

And Jason:

I am perfectly willing to let women decide without us men on this issue. Who wants the responsibility?

Sex is not divorced from reproduction. Everytime a fertile man and fertile woman fuck, there is a chance (however minute) that a pregnancy will result. Only the most ignorant of ignorant don't know this.

To use your phrase, "it's sometimes best for an unwanted pregnancy to be terminated quickly..." I agree. To me (and to many free-thinking, unoppressed women) the conditions I gave above would qualify when that is to be invoked.

You're right. Abortion is not a conspiracy. It's worse than that. It's an institution, like slavery in America.

Please explain to us at what point in your view does a developing unborn child cease to be a collection of cells with potential and become a person?
 

---

Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
 
OK,here's the science bit...

First you get your haploid (1 set of chomosomes) gamates (a sperm and egg).

Man meets woman, squishy jiggling ensues, it gets a bit messy...

The sperm does its thang, fuses with an egg and fertilizes it. The fertilized ovum (now refered to as a zygote)is diploid (2 sets of chromosomes = 46) and undergoes mitosis a few times. It them becomes a morula (a ball of cells essentialy) after about 3 days.

Next it develops into a hollow ball of cells (a blastocyst). The blastocyst then embeds itself into the wall of the uterus, (about 10 days after fertilization). A group of cells inside the blastocyst forms the yolk sack and the amniotic cavity (from which the embryo develops). The cells on the outside of the blastocyst (called trophoblasts) form the chorion (which forms the placenta.) An embryo now develops, and carries on for about eight weeks, after which time is considered a foetus.

At the end of the 1st trimester (which is the cut off point for abbortions that are for no medical reason in many countries) a foetus is around 2" from crown to backside. It has clearly defined arms, legs etc. and continues to develop for a further 21 weeks until birth.

So, to answer your question, I'd say sometime between 5 and 8 weeks (but I am not an expert, just a biology student with too much time on his hands).

James
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
James,

Yes, that part I'm familiar with. It's not a new discussion for me.

I was asking Jason the question about his personal position.

James, do you happen to know at what point most women know they're pregnant?
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Well, a missed period is usually the first clue, but that might not happen for the first month (prior to embedding). However, if everything goes textbook perfect (HAH!), the woman will miss her first period approximately two weeks after fertilisation. However, other factors can cause a missed period. Many women get morning sickness during the first trimester, but many don't. It's usually around the ten-week point that suspicion usually becomes certainty, but all except the skinniest women won't "show" until about the fourth or fifth month (sixteen to twenty weeks).

Jason, the main proponent of the SD bill was/is a -- wait for it -- woman. One who is hoping this will give them a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And Irishman... It's not an institution. It's an acknowledgement of reality. As I said in a previous post, women have proven over and over that when they want an abortion, they'll do whatever it takes, illegal or not, even at risk of their own lives. This has been true for thousads of years. In America, how many women died from botched abortions before it was legalised, regulated, and had quality control? Just making something illegal isn't going to stop those who really want it. Look at drugs and prostitution, nd alcohol during Prohibition. That worked real well! *pff*

I think the best we can do is legalise and regulate it until we are able to render it unneccessary as a society. That's what we should be striving for -- addressing the cause, and not just trying to eliminate a symptom.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irishman:
James,

Yes, that part I'm familiar with. It's not a new discussion for me.

---

quote:

---

Please to post the following, sir. No doubt, it'll draw fire from you, too.


Taking a break from Secret Project, I just HAVE to add my bits here.

To quote my friend Jeff, "I believe abortion is murder. BUT....I'm not anti-murder."

Hi there. I have a penis. I know where it goes & what it does. I accept that. But also, I don't really want ANYONE to take away my right to an abortion. That's right...I said MY right. I want & have just as much right to say "Dude, vacu-suck the shit outta that fucker" as much as any woman does.

I'm selfish, I'm self-centered. I have no patience for annoying things. Any woman I date, & any I'm gonna fuck has pretty much the same traits. In the past, they've all agreed: if that blob o' plasm is gonna be a cripple or a tard, SUCK THE FUCKER OUT. Dump it in the trash, flush it in the toilet, whatever. I cannot handle dealing with that hardship. Is that selfish? Yes. Is it also altruistic? You betcha. It's not fair to the little criptard to have a parent like me--I'd never have the patience to deal with it & I know I'd become resentful & that leads to nasty anger. I will (& HAVE) run around screaming "ABORT!! ABORT!! ABORT!! MAKE ME DEAD BABY STEW!!"

Some of you don't agree with abortion. Me, I have to take it on a point-by-point, case-by-case basis; I don't deal with absolutes. But who are you to take away the option? Who are YOU to tell ME what to do & how to live my life? YOU are not part of MY culture, so do not impinge upon me with your "morality," please. Pro-choice means JUST THAT: the choice is there. The OPTION is there. Many pro-choice people are personally anti-abortion, but they recognize the fact that the option should still be there. I hate the drunken jackasses outside my window every night between 0200 & 0245. Does that mean that alcohol is bad & all bars should be closed? No. When I go to a bar, I CHOOSE to not be a fuckwit & be responsible for my actions. It's the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Er...Shik asked me to post this for him:

quote:

---

Please to post the following, sir. No doubt, it'll draw fire from you, too.


Taking a break from Secret Project, I just HAVE to add my bits here.

To quote my friend Jeff, "I believe abortion is murder. BUT....I'm not anti-murder."

Hi there. I have a penis. I know where it goes & what it does. I accept that. But also, I don't really want ANYONE to take away my right to an abortion. That's right...I said MY right. I want & have just as much right to say "Dude, vacu-suck the shit outta that fucker" as much as any woman does.

I'm selfish, I'm self-centered. I have no patience for annoying things. Any woman I date, & any I'm gonna fuck has pretty much the same traits. In the past, they've all agreed: if that blob o' plasm is gonna be a cripple or a tard, SUCK THE FUCKER OUT. Dump it in the trash, flush it in the toilet, whatever. I cannot handle dealing with that hardship. Is that selfish? Yes. Is it also altruistic? You betcha. It's not fair to the little criptard to have a parent like me--I'd never have the patience to deal with it & I know I'd become resentful & that leads to nasty anger. I will (& HAVE) run around screaming "ABORT!! ABORT!! ABORT!! MAKE ME DEAD BABY STEW!!"

Some of you don't agree with abortion. Me, I have to take it on a point-by-point, case-by-case basis; I don't deal with absolutes. But who are you to take away the option? Who are YOU to tell ME what to do & how to live my life? YOU are not part of MY culture, so do not impinge upon me with your "morality," please. Pro-choice means JUST THAT: the choice is there. The OPTION is there. Many pro-choice people are personally anti-abortion, but they recognize the fact that the option should still be there. I hate the drunken jackasses outside my window every night between 0200 & 0245. Does that mean that alcohol is bad & all bars should be closed? No. When I go to a bar, I CHOOSE to not be a fuckwit & be responsible for my actions. It's the same thing.

---

---

THIS COMMENT = MOST ENTERTAINING THING POSTED ON FLARE EVAR!
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
We also can't forget later-term miscarriages, TSN.My girlfrend's cousin had six miscarriages, out of seven pregnancies.

Shik? That was about the most offensive post I've ever seen... I'm still giggling. God, I've missed you.

And to quote Robert Heinlein, "Maybe a zygote is a gamete's way of making other gametes."

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
 
Shik - thats better than coffee first thing in the morning.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
Dude. You just made my day! LOL!

After reading that. And deciding it has some valid points strewn in there. I guess that while I think Abortion is still sick and wrong, People should be allowed the freedom to choose.
 

---

Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
 
I was staying away from this thread, but after Shik's post and the responses afterwards I would just like to echo them.

To me, the argument is over the moment the two sides have announced their 'team-names'. One is Pro-Life. The other is Pro- Choice. Not Pro-Death. We believe that you should be able to choose what happens to your body and your life. If you want to carry on and have the baby, good for you and I hope you do a good job raising the kid. But if you want to make a reasoned, rational choice to end the pregnancy, just as good for you, provided you take precautions in future. Choice. It's all about choice.
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
The Shik post? I hope to hell it was tongue imbedded so firmly in cheek it burst out the side of it.

If not, gods help us all.

Not Invented here, remember, if you can dehumanise an unborn child, you can rationalize any crime you want. Even murder.

We can talk about reasonable sounding ideals like choice and freedom all we want, but we've got the advantage. We're alive and can defend ourselves if someone tries to vacu-suck us away.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 

quote:

---

Choice. It's all about choice.

---

quote:

---

The reasoning is different in that yours involves a person not of your responsibility and NIH's (presumably) an embryo that would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
The reasoning is different in that yours involves a person not of your responsibility and NIH's (presumably) an embryo that would be.

---

quote:

---

A bettervcomparison might be that youo develop a tumor that you want extracted, but that some religous group decides should stay and possibly kill you....and then they take away your right to have the tumor removed.

---

quote:

---

Most unwanted pregnantcies are more than just the supposed "inconvience" of having a child- there's huge economic strain involved (only fo the mother- a father can literally deny everything and walk away from his responsibility in most cases).
So you get a woman forced into motherhood, with zero money and no prospects for the future othre than raising a child she never wanted...

---

quote:

---

Before the government can even think of forcing a child to term, they need to insure that child and his mother's future- medical coverage, food, housing, schooling and job training (or at least placement) for the mother....and of course, make certain the child is loved and cared for at least a few hours a day (emotional development is as importnamt as physical).

---

quote:

---

So you get a woman forced into motherhood, with zero money and no prospects for the future othre than raising a child she never wanted...

---

quote:

---

I'd be seriously intrested to see how many of these far-right wingers were virgins when they got married: less than 1% would be my guess...

---

quote:

---

I don't know what this will do to anyone's opinions on the matter, but, according to various sources I've seen (on the Internets, mind you), between 50 and 80% of fertilized eggs never make it that far. They don't implant and end up just being flushed out in the normal course of the menstrual cycle.

---

quote:

---

A woman would never compare her unborn child with a deadly tumor.

---

You obviously don't recognize the possibility for unstable humans to develop psychoses and/or temporary mental problems due to the shock of getting burdened with a pregnancy.
Both men and women can go through personality changes as the real and imagined (exaggerated, prejudiced) consequences pile up in their minds.

And the less sympathy, understanding or information they get (from damning family members and fundamentalist officials) the larger the risk that they will harm themselves in amateuristic "desperate measures".
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
Nim,

I've been with my wife during her pregnancy. She never thought of it as a burden, nor developed a psychosis due to the "shock" of said condition.

Do you really want people with temporary psychoses making the decision to end the life growing within them? I don't.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
I do
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
I can't quite pin down the argument that abortionists make. You argue that it's the mother's body and thus her soverign right to do what she pleases. Someone points out that the child has a body too, and you jump to arguing about economic consequences, as if that rendered the previous argument moot. Someone points out that economics is no excuse for immoral action, and you jump to the definition of life. Someone questions why responsibility for one's child created by one's voluntary actions should begin after birth instead of before, and you decide to talk about rape or how laws about paternal child support aren't enforced. Yes, you have legitimate points in some cases, but please try to be a bit more linear, because right now we're just going in circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irishman:
I've been with my wife during her pregnancy. She never thought of it as a burden, nor developed a psychosis due to the "shock" of said condition.

Do you really want people with temporary psychoses making the decision to end the life growing within them? I don't.

---

quote:

---

I really don't think you care about these mothers in unwanted pregnancies. I think you just want to be right.

---

Or I know several mothers that look at having their child as the moment their life went wrong.
The moment when their future was forever tied down to raising a child they might now love, but never wanted and could not care for- most when they were still in their mid-teens.
None have careers, none went to college and all work full time to support a child... alone.

Most carry that anger around, and it shows in how they treat their kids.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"I can't quite pin down the argument that abortionists make. You argue that it's the mother's body and thus her soverign right to do what she pleases. Someone points out that the child has a body too, and you jump to arguing about economic consequences, as if that rendered the previous argument moot. Someone points out that economics is no excuse for immoral action, and you jump to the definition of life. Someone questions why responsibility for one's child created by one's voluntary actions should begin after birth instead of before, and you decide to talk about rape or how laws about paternal child support aren't enforced. Yes, you have legitimate points in some cases, but please try to be a bit more linear, because right now we're just going in circles."

You should be a spin doctor. Someone comes up with not only one, but four arguments in their favor, and you turn that into "they can't come up with a coherent argument"?

You're acting like the argument is changing from one moment to the next. It's not. Those arguments are all simultaneous. Those who favor abortion rights believe that zygotes are not alive, that women should make such decisions for themselves, that economic problems play an important role in the issue, and that rape-induced pregnancies should be among the last things anyone would want to legally force. All at the same time.

Perhaps it's the other side that needs to be less "linear". A constant stream of "it's wrong because we believe it's wrong" does not a proper debate make.

"I've been with my wife during her pregnancy. She never thought of it as a burden, nor developed a psychosis due to the 'shock' of said condition."

Well, bully for her. And the other women of child-bearing age in the country? At a guess, I'd say there are probably close to 100 million of them. Have you been with them, too?

Basically, I don't see your point. He said that some women can be very negatively affected, mentally, by pregnancy. And your rebuttal was, "Well, my wife wasn't!".
 

---

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1114/MR1114.chap5.html
I found this survay after a google search. It seems to indicate (though it is a tad old 1998) that there is very little difference between male and female points of view on abortion. Either way, just because someone has involvement with an issue one way or another, does not mean one should not consider their arguements if logical.

The arguements in favor of abortion may be numerous (as are the arguements opposed), but it seems to me that they are wholly inadequate to support abortion if it is considered murder in the mid/late stages of pregnancy. None of the arguements can justify murder, and following them to their conclusion, newborns would be up for "abortion" as well.

To counter some other arguements [not that any of them matter at all considering the above - except those cases where a womans life is in danger that could lead to some interesting debates (eg, is it okay to kill one to save another? It would only apply if the fetus would have a chance if not aborted)], just because some people have bad childhoods due to crappy parents and economic circumstances, doesn't mean they will lead bad lives, or be similar to their parents at all. Even cripples with deranged fathers can be perfectly happy .

P.S. Zygotes are alive, they are just no more 'alive' then ameobas or cauliflower.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
A tad old?
Eight years is a whole lotta voters coming of age...and literally millions of kids becoming adults. There are kids that were in elementary school when that survey was done that now have several kids...

quote:

---

P.S. Zygotes are alive, they are just no more 'alive' then ameobas or cauliflower.

---

quote:

---

Even cripples with deranged fathers can be perfectly happy

---

But not adopted.
 

---

Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
 
To TSN and Jason:

TSN first:

The pro-abortion side can lay out all the well-crafted arguments they want. The fact is, those of us who are pro-life see a murder being committed in abortion. There is no socio-psycho-economic argument that can trump the life or death of an innocent child.


Jason:

Why are you showing anger and hatred towards unborn children? Whether you think you do or not, it comes through in your posts.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 

quote:

---

You're acting like the argument is changing from one moment to the next. It's not. Those arguments are all simultaneous. Those who favor abortion rights believe that zygotes are not alive, that women should make such decisions for themselves, that economic problems play an important role in the issue, and that rape-induced pregnancies should be among the last things anyone would want to legally force. All at the same time.

---

quote:

---

The pro-abortion side can lay out all the well-crafted arguments they want. The fact is, those of us who are pro-life see a murder being committed in abortion. There is no socio-psycho-economic argument that can trump the life or death of an innocent child.

---

quote:

---

Dr. William Reid had testified that people close to Schlosser had missed obvious signs of severe mental illness.
John Schlosser, said he wasn't alarmed when his wife said after church the day before the killing that she wanted to "give the baby to God." He said she appeared normal after he calmed her down, and he thought her mental condition had improved over the past few months.

The summer before Maggie died, Schlosser abandoned Maggie and her other two children by running away from the family's apartment. She was found two miles away by Plano police and released from a hospital less than 24 hours later.
The Schlosser family went several times a week to the Water of Life Church. The pastor, Doyle Davidson, testified that he believes mental illness is possession by demons and only God can cure it.

Dena Schlosser, who was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis after Maggie's birth, didn't take medication or see a doctor in the four months before the killing.
After her arrest, Dena Schlosser was diagnosed with manic depression and declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. But in May, after doctors treated her, a judge found she was competent.

---

quote:

---

The fact is, what you see is irrelevant if you don't back it up with scientific evidence instead of arguments from emotion.

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that religion is bad because some people believe mental illness is caused by demonic possession?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
... I'm saying it's not being presented well. Every argument of abortionists has a response by the opposite side, but when it's brought up, the abortionist seems to just change to another subject instead of continuing the debate on that point...[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

My stance for abortion is based on several underlying points which are pretty controversial and probably would not be fully agreed on by anyone on this board.

---

For what it is worth, you've got my backing. Thanks for putting it more eloquently than I probably could.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Oh boy, I can't believe I'm about to step right into the thick of this, but fuck it, right?

The primary argument taking place here is about whether or not abortion is right or wrong.� This argument will never go anywhere.� It's a matter of opinion and, with a few exceptions, everyone has already made up his/her mind about which side he/she agrees (more or less) with.� No one is going to convince Omega or Irishman that abortion is really okay, and likewise nobody is going to convince Jason that it is a morally reprehensible act.� In this sense, the argument is futile and pointless.

You can talk about the morality or immorality of something until you're as blue in the face as Shran, but the argument only functions so long as everyone is grounded in the same moral beliefs.� Which, obviously, we're not.� Differing people have differing morals.� In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist. Moral arguments are irrelevent.

Sooner or later, one must recognize and accept that not everyone will lead their lives according to one's own moral standards. Whether one feels it acceptable to try to force others to live by those morals or not is irrelevent, becuase most of the time this is impossible anyway. As many people here and elsewhere have pointed out, law or no law, people will act in accordance with what THEY perceive as the best course of action for them. In this case, that means women will have abortions whether it's legal or not. This is a FACT and it cannot be sidestepped. So it becomes a question of--forgive the expression--choosing the lesser of two evils. Would you rather have this act, which you consider to be morally wrong but which will inevitably occur, legally monitored and regulated/performed by licensed physicians or would you rather have it being done by desperate young women in public restrooms? ��

Socio-anthropologically speaking, laws are always a compromise of some kind put forth in an effort to allow as many people as possible to live peacefully together in a society. All the laws that restrict people's freedom of action must exist solely for the (ironic word usage ahead) convenience of society at large. They must somehow further its functioning. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal not because they are immoral acts but because they are acts that inhibit the normal functions of a society. Trying to legislate morality is a stupid idea, because it is not a constant among the population or even, at times, among individuals. A law which exists to enforce a moral viewepoint but is not necessary to the overall functioning of society will not work. As someone else also mentioned, Prohibition was a prime example of this in the U.S., as are (IMHO) the current federal laws regarding marijuana.

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is not rendering any necessary benefit either to them as individuals or to society at large. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite. It puts greater burden on the mother and her family as well as on the resources of the functioning whole. The world is already overpopulated; there are already thousands if not millions of children all over the world who do not have sufficient social or physical care and sustenance. THIS is the inhibition to society's functioning that needs to be overcome. THIS is what I think people should be crusading against. (Not to imply that there is no one already doing so, of course.)

Since, as I said, laws are by their very nature compromises to allow varying people and ideas to coexist, Roe v. Wade seems to present a quite reasonable soultion to this disagreement, in spirit if not in its particular provisions. You can have an abortion up to a certain point; after that point, you can't. This is a compromise designed to give something to both sides. If people want to re-evaluate what that specific point should be, then that's fine, but you can't take an all-or-nothing moral absolutist stance on an issue like this, even if that is your first inclination. You can't just say "abortion is wrong and should be outlawed" and think that this is a complete or sufficient argument.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
 

quote:

---

Even now, people can have massive variations on what defines a human being, whether its our sentience, our DNA, our cultural morals, or even the way one acts.

Ask ten different people on the street what a human is and you'll likely get ten different answers linking back to biology, or religion, or morality, or philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Differing people have differing morals. In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist.

---

quote:

---

All the laws that restrict people's freedom of action must exist solely for the (ironic word usage ahead) convenience of society at large.

---

Like, say, slavery.

There isn't a political solution to this. Legalize abortion, and you have a million human beings killed every year for convenience. Outlaw it, and you have a whole different set of issues, which, while I would say don't justify that many deaths, are still terrible and would still have to be dealt with.

The Christian community is defined by our end purpose, furthering the reign of God on earth. The laws of the government simply define the environment in which we try to do that. If that many women in our society feel the need to have abortions, if they feel like they don't have other options, then THAT is the problem we need to address, regardless of the laws. And at that, we need to do far better.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I shink ev'body's right...

This is a bit of a long one, but I'd ask you to bear with me on this, rather than skim.

I've seen a lot of good points and a lot of non-points raised by just about everyone in here. My only real beef at the moment is being referred to as "pro-abortion". I'm not. I'm pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, pro-death, or anti-life the way pro-life usually means anti-choice. I personally want children, as does my gilfriend -- just not quite yet (but sometime within the next five years or so). She is pro-choice, but doesn't ever want to get an abortion -- except to save her life, or if she's raped. I wouldn't want her to ever have to make that choice, so we're being quite careful.

I have at least two friends that I know of (female, mind you) who definitely don't want children, and I don't know what they'd do if they ever found themselves confronted with very-definitely unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. But I want them to have the choice.

The thing everyone on here seems at least partially oblivious to is that there are no absolutes in this issue. Not anywhere. Circumstances of conception are no guarantee of anything. There are some kickass single parents out there. My mom did a great job with me, but it was still a tremendously hard period for both of us, and I'm still in therapy at age 31 to sort it all out. My friend Marissa is doing a great job with her son, after her husband (at the time) turned out to be a psycho control freak asshole. But she still had to move back in with her parents if she wanted to be able to continue going to school and support herself and her son.

I also know people who were born to solid homes, whose parents utterly screwed them up. Some have committed suicide, some are drug addicts, some accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and stopped thinking for themselves, some are in prison... My girlfriend might have gone one or more of those routes herself (indeed, was starting to) had I not come into her life when I did.

It all comes down to the quality of the parents (yes, it takes two people to make a life). If junior is likely to end up being trailer trash with an IQ of 12, probably better off having never been born, but that's not my call. Nor should it be anyone else's but the parents'. An example I like to hold up is the Columbine mess. I started gaming in seventh grade (when they were in diapers), got a trenchcoat in eleventh grade (when they were in Kindergarten), have various implements of death and destruction -- as well as disturbing and/or violent music and imagery around me, but I had good parents. I know I will never tkae a human life, but in extreme cases of self-defence. And I will never intentionally take an animal life, but to feed or clothe myself if neccessity demands. My parents tought me the sanctity of life, and the importance of personal accountability and responsibility. If all parents would do that, I think the issue of abortions would be far less huge -- along with rape, murder, robbery...

What it boils down to is that all the religious, econmic, psychological, marital, and other miscellaneous concerns are invalid as blanket statements. Remember, this is a big planet we live on, and one man's morality is another's belly-laugh. Before anything --anything -- else, we have to ralise that no one has the inherent right to impose their morality on another in the same society. Culture is a different matter. America, for example, is one society, but many, many cultures. I would have no problem if Catholics or Evangelical Christians -- say -- made abortion tabu in their cultures, and anyone who wanted to be accepted as a member of that culture would have to abide by that proscription. Works just fine, since you don't have to be a Catholic to be an American. Keeps it out of the politial arena altogether -- except maybe by keeping abortion legal for those cultures/groups/religions/whatever who don't neccessarily ascribe so much importance to unborn humans.

Otherwise, how long before we're all the way to the point of Iraq or Northern Ireland -- where the two (or more) camps just can't seem to live and let live. They have to stick their bombs into other people's business.

Not that I think there's anything particularly special about humans in the first place. I've been tempted more than once to move to Texas, so I can employ the "he needed killin'" defence if I decide someone's proven themselves too stupid to be allowed to keep breathing my air.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

quote:

---

Differing people have differing morals. In an objective sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist.

---

Only in your moral system.

---

Omega, you ninny. You completely missed the point! Ther is no absolute morality, only individual interpretations. Cannibalism is a horrific thing to you (and, indeed, most sane Westerners), but perfectly normal behaviour to certain tribes in New Guinea. Who's right? Latter-Day Saints churchmembers eschew -- among other things -- alcohol and caffeine. I -- and the rest of the Episcopal church -- have no problem with caffeine or alcohol. Who's right? Atheists believe there is no God. Christians (for example) believe there is. Who's right? There are over six (American) billion opinions on the planet right now. Who's right...?

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Omega, any "moral system" is, by definition, not objective. I doubt very much that you can know anything much at all about my personal morals from anything I've posted in this thread. I was not discussing my personal beliefs on abortion, but rather looking at the issue in a broader, socio-anthropological context.

Regarding slavery, it is a perfect example of my point. It didn't end until it posed a threat to the functioning of American society as a cohesive whole. The Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was not fought to free the slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. Lincoln took a personal position that was anti-slavery, but even said himself that he would never have gone to war over the issue. Instead, he did so to keep the South from seceeding.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:
That's why the criminizalization (or legalization) of abortion should be decided through elected representatives rather than through judges.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution neither grants nor denies the right to an abortion, making the decision a Legislative one.

---

quote:

---

I've also noticed a strong anti-religious sentiment running through this argument...

---

Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government. (There, Omega, that's statement of personal belief for you. )

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 

quote:

---

Omega, you ninny. You completely missed the point! Ther is no absolute morality, only individual interpretations.

---

quote:

---

Regarding slavery, it is a perfect example of my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irishman:
To TSN and Jason:


Jason:

Why are you showing anger and hatred towards unborn children? Whether you think you do or not, it comes through in your posts.

---

What are you smoking?
That's like me saying you show "anger and hatred" towards women by your posts...it's stupid.
I wont insult you by suggesting you hate women because you wnat to control their reproductive rights.
Attacking the people making a diffrent point of view when you cant come up with a supportive argument for our own viewpoint is an act of desperation. Why answer a question when you can slander someone and duck the issue?

Besides, by trying to attribute some sinister motive to my post, you are conviently sidestepping everything I posted. Surely you can answer the question?
Can you see the diffrence between your own situation and an unwanted pregnantcy? Many in the anti-abortion camp can't- they see all life as sacred....untill the child is born, that is.
Then it's someone else's problem- the mother's, naturally.

If your wife were raped, and forced to carry the child to term, could you love that child? (personally, I dont think I could)
Putting it up for adoption is just as bad as aborting it- worse and less responsible by my way of thinking- hoping someone else will care for it while washing your hands of all responsibility.

It's so easy to "fight for children" and then wash your hands of their actual lives after their born.
Why not spend all this passion nad money on fighting for children that are already alive? Why not protect the wellfare of the millions of hopelessly poor children in America?

Because it's not as easy as fighting for an abstract cause like "rights of the unborn".

As to myself, I love children- I think they should all be raised in loving, caring families with a real chance of happiness.
But they have to be wanted first for that to be remotely possible.
You'll never have a healthy relationship between child and parents of that child was the result of rape or incest, yet, that's just the sort of thoughtless mentality the "pro-life" camp is all about, and this law in particular.

Pro-Choice is not "pro-abortion" or "pro-death", it's about choice. As in freedom for a woman to choose what to do with herself without outside interference from religous groups.

I wouldn't say this thread has so much an "anti-religious sentiment" as a pro-freedom sentiment.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irishman:
Cartman,

First of all your definition of murder is wrong.

The American legal definition of what qualifies for murder concerns intent. There must be the intention to cause death before the act itself. Interesting then, that in some cases, shooting a pregnant woman who then dies with her unborn child can result in two murder charges.

That said, one part of the American law code attaches that personhood to an unborn child, while another part (that which allows abortion) does not. Can anyone else see a day of reckoning between those two views soon?

You provide no documentation for your definition of embryo and human being. Therefore, it can only be considered anecdotal, not scientific proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Slavery existed as an institution in the US because it was for the greater benefit of society...

---

quote:

---

That didn't make it right.

---

quote:

---

The greater benefit of society is NOT the sole basis for legal decisions.

---

The point is that laws, in order to be applicable, must reflect reality. We just went through a great example of how moral principles of right and wrong do not determine reality. It's a question of procedure, not ideals. As I said, the idealogical argument is insoluable.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
A tad old?
Eight years is a whole lotta voters coming of age...and literally millions of kids becoming adults. There are kids that were in elementary school when that survey was done that now have several kids...

quote:

---

P.S. Zygotes are alive, they are just no more 'alive' then ameobas or cauliflower.

---

And yet, I feel no tears welling up at the "slaughter" of cauliflower that occurs each day.

quote:

---

Even cripples with deranged fathers can be perfectly happy

---

But not adopted.

---

1. Are you saying that the male/female abortion support statistics have changed signifigantly as compared to each other over less then a decade? This seems like a very strange notion. I'm sure overall support has changed, but I bet the difference between the two has changed very little or not at all.

2. Yes, exactly. There is no ethical/consistancy problem with slaughtering zygotes. It is possible to be neither pro or anti abortion, but to have a well-defined position that happens to fall between those extreme views (such as mine ).

3. Huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
"The fact is, those of us who are pro-life see a murder being committed in abortion."

The fact is, what you see is irrelevant if you don't back it up with scientific evidence instead of arguments from emotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
However, anyone that is pro-life (usually...I suppose there could be exceptions) comes from a religious or moral background which is easy to reconcile. Lock them in a room and ask them to debate whether Jesus was really a prophet, whether the pope is God's representive on Earth, and they'll fight.

---

SUPPOSE? I'm right here! However, I am interested in this 'fight room' you propose and wish to learn more...
-------------------------------


As for the discussion on moral systems, I prefer to use the other parties moral system and convince them via that. For example, if it were highly convienant for all parties, why not destroy newborns? They are no more advanced (and certainly not self-conscious) then late-stage fetuses (feti?).

Some other random points:
Considering society as a whole, abortions are not good for most countries, especially Europe. European population is going down in many places, and the U.S. population is only going up due to immigration. The global trend is a decline in population growth, with stabilization and then fall in 2050. Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them. In fact, it will help. Children are not a burdon on society because they eventually grow up in most cases, at which point they become regular citizens and start making great contributions. True, children that would otherwise have been aborted will be less productive then other children will eventually be, but this is a statistical difference (the otherwise aborted children would still easily be worth the cost overall), and there is a full range of possibilities for both.

Another arguement is that a parent can simply put a new child up for adoption (and presumably, the adopting parents will want the child they are adopting ), thus ridding the parent of any further responsibility. If a parent forms a bond with the child, and decides to keep it, then the parent clearly ACTUALLY prefers having the child, as opposed to not (I leave out people that become mentally ill here, of course).

Also, stop accusing people of only bothering with feti before they are born. Many would certainly suppport initiatives to improve education and such. Especially eliminating the "cultural diversity" requirements in college! Think of how many suicides we could prevent if we did that!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

1. Are you saying that the male/female abortion support statistics have changed signifigantly as compared to each other over less then a decade? This seems like a very strange notion. I'm sure overall support has changed, but I bet the difference between the two has changed very little or not at all.

---

quote:

---

Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them. In fact, it will help.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

The Christian community is defined by our end purpose, furthering the reign of God on earth. The laws of the government simply define the environment in which we try to do that.

---

Not a big fan of separation of church and state
Don't suppose you could just pass laws of the government that apply only to Christians, i.e. banning abortion only for Christians.

Its a kind of discrimination, but we could probably convince the courts to make an exception since the group is discriminating against itself .

quote:

---

Originally posted Neutrino 123:

As for the discussion on moral systems, I prefer to use the other parties moral system and convince them via that. For example, if it were highly convienant for all parties, why not destroy newborns? They are no more advanced (and certainly not self-conscious) then late-stage fetuses (feti?).

Some other random points:
Considering society as a whole, abortions are not good for most countries, especially Europe. European population is going down in many places, and the U.S. population is only going up due to immigration. The global trend is a decline in population growth, with stabilization and then fall in 2050. Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them.

---

On the fight room: Too bad we don't actually have enough religious diversity on this board to actually try it. But on a related note it is one of my dreams to just dump off members of all the aggressive/evangelical religions, Christianity, Muslims, Judaism, etc. in the Middle East. Build a big wall, toss in some weapons, and ask them to fight it out. Whatever faith wins, we'll just call "religion". Then when people say that they're religious, you don't have to ask which one, so life will be much simpler. Also, no religious warfare. Plus, no one should be able to complain because a) God's "chosen" people should win, whomever it should turn out to be b) the losers will be gone anyways.

Its debatable whether we should remove the wall afterwards But I jest...mostly.

But seriously, and now to really horrify people. As I stated before, I don't particularly feel that human life has any special sacrosant status. So if someone *really* wants to kill their own child, and assuming that they came by their decision rationally (i.e. not termporary post-partum depression), and the child isn't old enough to be self-conscious....then go right ahead.

Now, personally, I would be horrified at the thought of doing it myself and no one other than the parents should be able to make that decision. But in the end, the only reason any species has children is to pass on our genetic inheritance, so if someone decides that they aren't good enough to pass that along. Then all power to them.

As for demographics, the issue is not overall numbers. There's no magical reason why there should be 6 billion people on this Earth. What is at issue is natural resources. Even if the global population declines, the amount of natural resources people will consume will still go up simply because there are 1.2 billion people in China and whatever number in India that are rapidly progressing towards, for lack of a better word, an American way of life with the associated American usage of natural resources.
Hence we should do all that we can to encourage contraception and family planning. The last thing we want to do is force people to have children when they already have been convinced for whatever reason not to.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:
... sodomy has been decided to be a constitutional right...[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:

quote:

---

Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government.

---

You non-religious types need to be more active in government if us religious types are so easily able to stage such a political coup.

And yet the Supreme Court seems to have no real plans to reverse Roe vs. Wade, sodomy has been decided to be a constitutional right, and student-led pre-football game prayers are banned. I'm kind of upset that our cabal of fundamentalist rulers have done such a poor job of carrying out our ultra right-wing agenda. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy just isn't what it once was.

---

Well you've had that hurdle of 200 years of seperation of church and state to overcome, but you're making remarkable progress with that lately.
Besides, prayer before a football game is hardly the point...as is sodomy.
Though I'm personally opposed to any combonation of those three.

...though it gives the old "Hail Mary" play new meaning.
 

---

Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
 

quote:

---

Well you've had that hurdle of 200 years of seperation of church and state to overcome, but you're making remarkable progress with that lately.

---

Your belief that the separation between church and state is weaker now than it was in the past makes me giggle.

I can only think of the days of prayer called for through the centuries by presidents and Congress during times of national emergency (such as when by Nixon called for one when the Apollo 13 crew was in danger), the saying of a prayer prior to the meeting of Congress that has been done since 1776, the essentially unquestioned addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegience in the '50s, the fact that Nativity scenes on public property during Christmas and crosses on public seals were never questioned until the past couple decades or so, frequent ACLU victories in courts limiting public expressions of religion, etc. I'm under the impression that it's your side that's winning.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well, we can hope.
I dont think America is any less religous now (certaibky not less than ten years ago), but rather that it's both more diverse, (slightly) more tolerant and a lot more P.C.

While it's certainly true that fifty years ago, no one would question a public nativity scene, you can bet someone would have burned down a minorah.
The ACLU's perspective is that if public religous displays are to be all or nothing (impossible to enforce), it's best to have nothing.
Though that did not preven religous right wingers from strongarming Target and Sears into promising to use the word "Christmas" this year instead of the more inclusive "Holiday Season".

I'm cool with whatever, as long as my tax dollars are not wasted on religous dogma and as long as I can still sacrifice to Chuthlu and the Flying Spagetti Monster in my own home.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zefram:
I can only think of the days of prayer called for through the centuries by presidents and Congress during times of national emergency (such as when by Nixon called for one when the Apollo 13 crew was in danger), the saying of a prayer prior to the meeting of Congress that has been done since 1776, the essentially unquestioned addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegience in the '50s, the fact that Nativity scenes on public property during Christmas and crosses on public seals were never questioned until the past couple decades or so, frequent ACLU victories in courts limiting public expressions of religion, etc. I'm under the impression that it's your side that's winning.

---

quote:

---

While it's certainly true that fifty years ago, no one would question a public nativity scene, you can bet someone would have burned down a minorah.

---

quote:

---

Though that did not preven religous right wingers from strongarming Target and Sears into promising to use the word "Christmas" this year instead of the more inclusive "Holiday Season".

---

quote:

---

I've seen many idiotic bumper stickers that read "Jesus is the reason for the season", which is laughable since Christmas was not a real holiday in december untill relativly recently and Hanukkah predates it by several hundred years.

---

quote:

---

Ignorance at work.
This "religous backlash" Christian people sometimes (lately) percieve? It's a knee-jerk reaction to coordinated efforts by the Right to shove Christianity down the general populace's throat.

---

First of all, the most recent American Religious Identification Survey shows that 77% of Americans self-identify as Christian, thus a good majority of the American population shouldn't feel like Christianity is being shoved down their throats.

Second, Christians merely want it to be acknowledged that the Christmas season is about Christmas, which is a celebration of Jesus Christ. To take a religion's holiday, whether you believe in it or not, and to neuter it of any of its meaning and signifigance would be an insult to any religion. If you were take the most sacred of Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement), in which Jews seek to atone for their sins against God, removed any mention of God and called it "Self-Reflection Day", I'm sure millions of Jews would be upset.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a 'Happy Yom Kippur' sign this coming October."

No, but I expect the Jews would.

"Well, Christmas (whose name means 'Christ's Mass') was declared as December 25th in 350A.D., which predates the whole Islamic religion by over 200 years. Also, Hanukkah was set up as a celebration after the Mosaic law was written and thus is a relatively minor religious holiday compared to Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur, which Israel was commanded to celebrate in scripture."

So, Christmas is only 1656 years old. Since the cultural importance of the winter solstice goes back well farther than that, I'm not sure I see how your argument works.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Just to hit on the whole religious thing... A lot of the practices of the early Catholic Church bother me yet, particularly their co-opting of local religions by twisting them into Christian contexts. In late December, I celebrate the Solstice. My new year starts at sundown October 31st. I enjoy the family-and-friends spirit of the Christmas season, as well as the exchanging of gifts, so I essentially start celebrating on Thanksgiving, carry over through the Feast of St. Steven (I think -- last Sunday in November?), on through Advent, a party for the Solstice, followed by celebrating the rebirth of Mithra starting the evening of the 24th, then Boxing Day on the 26th, and then round out the Twelve Days and end with a party on Twelfth Night -- even though that's dogmatically when the Magi arrived. I incorporate as much of the old pagan (originally meaning only "non-Christian") observances as I can.

All of the Christmas accoutrements predate Christianity's encroachment on those regions. Christmas trees, yule logs, holly, mistletoe, wreaths, tinsel, lights (well, candles)... It was all pagan in origin.

I am multi-denominational, and I like to keep my observances of faith pure. Celtic, Shinto, and Jedi. I was also raised Episcopalian, and I like to keep my religious (as distinct from faith) observances equally pure. I love the ceremony and ritual, but a lot of Christian doctrine is nothing more than medieval superstition writ large.

I believe the universe is alive and aware, to some degree, and I have no real problem calling that awareness "God". I admire and respect the teacher named Yeshua ben Yosef who was born a bit over two millennia ago, and celebrate his birth and death every Easter (but keep it separate from the fertility rites that are what Easter is really about). I belive in a cerain intangible "spirit" that infuses everything (animate or in-) that science is thus far unable to detect or measure in any meaningful way. I belive the universe is full of magickal things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper. I belive science and mysticism are equally valid, but by their very natures incompatible with each other's realm. Mystecism is intensely personal, and should not me imposed on others who don't want it. And science is intensely universal, and imposes itself on everyone -- willing or not.

I view hard-core religion as a crutch for people who can't deal with reality. And I know that's going to stir up a few hornets. Tough. You think keeping condoms out of schools is going to revent adolescents from having sex? You think illegalising abortion is going to prevent women from getting them anyway? You think fighting a war for oil is going to help anyone in this country? America could pay for over four hundred million full-ride scholarships to major public universities and still spend less than was spent on the Iraq War last year. Cutting school budgets, veteran's benefits, and combat pay doesn't help either. If there's a serious global concern, we ought to stop fucking around and turn Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Pakistan into glass parking lots! Otherwise, there a lot more constructive things we could be doing.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
So, without belaboring what has just been pointed out, "Christmas" is hardly the original "reason for the season".
It's a misconception by the (as you posinted out) "77% of Americans self-identify as Christian" and dont know any better, and feel threatened by the (admittidly sometimes inane) P.C. treatment the major stores have gone to in order to offend no one.

Which goes to show that you'll always offend someone: even by saying happy Holidays.

Next thing you know, they'll be telling us easter is a Christian holiday too, or that Ramadan has nothing to do with aliens...
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Christmas and abortion don't go together.
I just watched "Requiem for a dream" for the first time and I just, I can't stop the montage of christmas eve and an abortion from playing in my mind, fast-pace edited and LOUD NOISES!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
They dont?
Well, there goes my idea for a Reeces style ad campaign.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Ew...

But yeah, to get one more lash in on this deceased equine, I usually wish people a "Happy Solstice", unless I know them to be of a particular religious/philosophical bent. My girlfriend is Jewish, and likes the double opportunity for prezzies. Her housemate is a Jehovah's Witness, so I don't comment on the season at all.

And I know this doesn't have much to do with abortion on the surface. It's more a general trend of Christianity forcing its views on the world at large.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
 

quote:

---

All of the Christmas accoutrements predate Christianity's encroachment on those regions. Christmas trees, yule logs, holly, mistletoe, wreaths, tinsel, lights (well, candles)... It was all pagan in origin.

---

This was actually the Catholic modus operandi in the past. In Mexico during the Conquest, Catholic priests would found churches on top of local sacred sites. It's not unusual to see Christian churches and shrines built on top of much older pyramids. The Virgin of Guadalupe, supposedly an incarnation of the Virgin Mary, was said to have had a native Mexican appearance and to speak Aztec.

The above, however, does not change the fact that Jesus is currently the "reason for the season" and has been for over a millenium. Christmas as the winter solstice is simply not why the majority of Americans celebrate the season.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Cristmas is also the big winner of the "Mass" days.
Back in the dark ages the church was afraid of the diefication that many faithful were leaning toward regarding the Angels- thus Michaelmass and Gabriielmass were demoted to "The Mass of Saint Michael/Gabriel...waaay down to earth with Saint Peter and the other humans.

The (alleged) diefication was probably a result of geberations following polytheistic religous belief systems- ya gotta have a god/feast for every little thing.

No need to demnote Jesus to mere sainthood, so as the remaining big Mass/feast day, Christmas got the loin's share of followers, while the othrs have faded into obsurity.

...still, it did not really blow up untill gifts were exchanged and common folks could actually look forward to a religous holiday without all the guilt and ceremony the church so specializes in.

...And now you know the rest of the backstory.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"...Christmas got the loin's share of followers..."

Whoa.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
That's a typo...swear to God.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Deja vu.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
So, if Christmas got the loin's share, Michael- & Gabrielmass must have received the butt-end, right?
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"That's a typo...swear to God."

Like the one in your signature? What is that, "bwee-ti-ful"?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Did you know, that aside from being a powerful narcotic, Percocet disrupts your sleep patterns?
I was up 22 hours when I posted all that yesterday.

But I'm feeling much better now.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Yesssss... Percocet was my friend when I had my wisdom teeth out... I slept a lot.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
I'm actually looking forward to getting mine out now
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Yeah well, now the good times are gone, but the bullshit lasts forever...
I'd be happy not to need them.

Assuming I ever get better, I can look forward to useing Methadone (the Orgasmatron of drugs) to break this particular habbit.

Funny thing is, all those songs about drugs now make sense and I've become a big Dandy Warhols fan....
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
The excuse "my new drugs have kept me awake for several hours" is hereby put in the Big Box Of Banned Excuses For Moronic Posts, right after "I accidently gave my girlfriend/brother/dog my password and he posted in my name".
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
`These are actually really old drugs that dont work as well any more....but I see the point.

Hey, it still beats "My kid posted it for me" from a few months back.
I wish I'd thought to use that.

You're back in force: where were you hiding during this thread's juicy parts?
You're very late to the party.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I just love how contentious threads here inevitably run their courses but then aren't closed, instead running on into sardonic oblivion as everyone crawls out of their foxholes and hangs around for cigarettes and mutual gossip. It's oodles of fun.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I could stoke the fire...

"Religion is he opium of the masses." --Karl Marx

If that doesn't twist some panties, I'll try harder...

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I was fired and then got a better paying job. It was a fun few weeks. Also, occasionally I hate you.

So, what happened in this thread? Someone sum it up for me in less than 100. Preferably with bullet points.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Me in particular, or Flare (and online life) in general?

As to the topic at hand, the juicy bits come mostly from the middle pages (so far) and it died down a bit in the past week while waiting for yesterday's events to unfold.

They passed the law- now it goes to the Supreme Court to either be struck down or used asa template to strip women's rights countrywide.
Lots of Republicans in each state want to be the ones that pen their own version of the legislation.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Heh, bet you wish you'd taken that job as my minion now, eh? So when do we get to hear about the firing story? (I have to know, because Kate will want to know, she's very protective towards Liam, she thinks he's lovely)
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Kate has, like, the best taste ever.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
That depends. Did she meet when you had your boy band hair?
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Oh yes.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
She's a drinker then?

A heavy, heavy drinker?

Hmm...or prahaps she was hoping to entice you into geting a matching haircut out of a deep sense of twisted humor.
"But honey, it looks so cute on Liam..."
She did marry a Flarite after all.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Would you rather have boy band hair, or hair like... er, who has rubbish hair here?
 

---

Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
 
I don't have bad hair, but it is starting to thin quite a bit up top...
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Just shave it all off- I've been doing that for years and would not go back to having a mop top.

Just going a day or two without shaving make me feel unclean.

Besides, when you first do it, all the women you know want to rub your head...yeah, I know how that sounds, but it's nice.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.J.:
I don't have bad hair, but it is starting to thin quite a bit up top...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Hey, Jason. What do you use? Conventional store-bought disposable razor? A Headblade���? Something else?

Not ever planning on shaving my head, mind you. But I'm always curious to see what people use.

--Jonah

P.S. How the hell did we get from abortion onto the problems of thinning hair? That seems a rather big leap, even for this crowd!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Hey, Jason. What do you use? Conventional store-bought disposable razor? A Headblade���? Something else?

Not ever planning on shaving my head, mind you. But I'm always curious to see what people use.

--Jonah

---

Store bought cheapie kind- I use each razor two or three times tops, so those expensive refills with ten blades can bite me.
I do find that women's disposable razors are much better- and cheaper- than mens.
I just dont buy the pink ones.

As to the topic, it'll founder untill the Supreme Court decides to hear/nix the case.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
All the males in my family suffer from male pattern baldness. My dad started going bald at 30, and my elder brother at 25. I'm doing better than them so far... my hair decided to recede a bit and then stop. It is really thin though, which means that if I cut it too short, you can see skin if I put gel on my hair. Too long, and it get lank and limp. I would shave it off, but I suspect that it'd just make me look ill.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well, if you get a tan, it looks healthy, but when you first shave it off, you have a sickly look untill your scalp matches your facial coloring.

Only takes a few days (here anyyway).
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I'm quite tickled by the fact that, after years of Liam's insinuations that I'm going bald, I have a thicker head of hair than he does.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Hey, if the Gary retains his blond tousle, you're in the clear.

One barely coherent born-again christian, one not, yet both in hair. It's Chakra.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Mabye the ingrown hairs are poking their briains?
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
I'm quite tickled by the fact that, after years of Liam's insinuations that I'm going bald, I have a thicker head of hair than he does.

---