 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: Abortion! |
 |
|
I don't know what happened. I thought for sure I had gotten the abortion thread transferred. I'm TRULY sorry I did not.
Because I didn't before, there's no way to transfer it over now. Again, I sincerely apologize for that.
I think abortion is awful. I think if there was a way for women to be able to remove the baby from her body and still have the baby survive, and that baby could be adopted or whatever, or that baby could somehow be cryogenically frozen or something--then I think abortion should be flat-out illegal.
Since that kind of thing is not currently possible, and I don't think women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy, it means that the only option available right now is abortion, which I think is horrible.
Here is a quote from HackFest, who brought up some really gruesome photos which really drives the point home about how TRULY AWFUL abortion really is:
| Quote: | Alright, here we go. First up, Treehugger, you said that you don't see a fetus as a "someone", but a "something". I see them as a someone based on several key things.
3 Weeks after Fertilization
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.
4 Weeks after Fertilization
The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.
7 Weeks after Fertilization
Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.
9 Weeks after Fertilization
More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones. The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.
10 Weeks after Fertilization
All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body. The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.
12 Weeks after Fertilization
Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.
Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it. The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down. If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her health. One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood."
Here's some pictures of the "something". Let's call a spade a spade.
I post these because I CAN NOT stand it when people sugar-coat for convenience.
You say that "women are human beings" and should not be forced based on that fact. These are human beings too.
You also say that "Plus, outlawing abortion isn't going to stop abortion. It's only going to remove access to safe abortion." as if that were a true statement. Really?! It will ONLY REMOVE ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION? It won't DRASTICALLY reduce it? Come now, that's silly. As far as the death penalty thing, I'm all for hard labor instead of the easy way out. |
As much as I believe that making it illegal would drastically reduce it, it would also lead to some things that are much worse than those pictures.
Hackfest also went on to say:
| Quote: | | When it comes to real health risks, for baby or mother, go for it. Seriously, my being anti birth control by death is just that. Incest, rape, they don't fall under that. I wouldn't even say that it needs to be as low as a 1% chance of survival to make sense. I'm not the person who should be able to decide that though, as I'm not qualified to do so. |
Which brings things back around to the fact that abortion IS wrong, but TO ME--I don't really see another alternative AT THIS TIME.
Treehugger had this to say:
| Quote: | I'm baaaack! ;D Sorry for the delay in response here. I've been super busy with my forum and although I've read everyone's responses, I have only now been able to make it back to reply. That all said, I'll start with ess2s2 (as he responded to my stuff first a couple weeks ago).
Ess2s2: | Quote: | | Treehugger, I agree with 99% of your post in reference to me. The only thing I take issue with is your interpretation of the word 'attitude' which I meant in the neutral sense and you seemed to interpret in the accusatory sense. I am only clarifying, I do not wish to explore the matter--which is unrelated to this discussion--further. |
Point taken. I did indeed misinterpret your intent. Normally when someone tells me I have an attitude, it is in a negative sense. LOL My apologies on that one.
Ess2s2 | Quote: | | I wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of a fetus. It is a 'someone' at the first sign of brain activity. Which is classically accepted to begin near the end of the embryonic stages of development. |
Who "classically accepts" that definition? Nobody I've heard of. In the medical field, a fetus and a baby are clearly two different things. A fetus is not a separate entity. Any medical bills for fetal abnormalities and conditions are billed on the mother's account (as the fetus is part of the mother's body at that stage of development). Medical coding describing a fetal condition is vastly different from medical coding regarding a newborn.
Furthermore, a fetus is not included in any census. A fetus cannot obtain a Social Security number. A fetus is legally and medically not the same as a child. A fetus is no more a child than an egg is a chicken.
Ess2s2 | Quote: | | Of course, the legal definition is after the point of viability, meaning after the point at which the fetus can be delivered and be able to survive and develop autonomously. |
From a medical standpoint, that's debatable, too. That said, 98.8% of women don't have abortions where the fetus is developed enough to be delivered and survive. And the remaining 1.2% of that statistic includes abortions of medical necessity. Needless to say, late-term abortions are a rarity and certainly no reason to initiate sweeping legislation over. Women are very good at making responsible and timely decisions regarding abortion.
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
Ess2s2 | Quote: | | By your definition given to Hackfest, a baby isn't someone until after it passes through the birth canal into this world. This rationale negates all the things that happen in the womb in the late stages of pregnancy such as fine and gross motor control, hiccups, urination, defecation, blinking, thought, pain response, and yes, emotion. |
Legally it's not. Please show me differently and I'll consider it. Medically, a fetus is treated differently than a newborn. That's a fact. A fetus has no legal status.
Ess2s2 | Quote: | Allow me to be absolutely clear: I do not disagree with a woman's right to choose. I may vehemently disagree with many of the reasons why a woman would get an abortion, but I still support the choice, as long as it is informed, and all other options have been carefully considered. I take serious issue with women getting abortions out of the sake of convenience, or as an afterthought to irresponsibility. This next sentiment constitutes a line unto itself.
Abortion is not birth control. Ever. |
I don't believe that abortion is used as birth control in the vast majority of cases. And on the rare occasions in which it is......do you really want that person to be a parent? Our social services department is already underfunded and overburdened. It has no resources to police the homes of people who have been forced to bring unwanted children into this world. It can't even police the cases it has now.
Abortion is not anything to celebrate. However, I'd much rather see an aborted fetus than a two-year-old admitted with cigarette burns all over it's body or a crushed skull from being thrown into a wall by a frustrated, under-educated parent. EVERY child should be a wanted child. Parenthood should be a choice.
| Quote: |
In fact, I think that as time passes, we will see more abortions, as young people engage in unprotected sex at younger and younger ages, and who are naive or uninformed as to the pressures, dangers and responsibility of sex, pregnancy and parenthood. |
Statistics disagree. The CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute have reported the number of abortions have been on the decline for the last several years.
| Quote: | | I apologize for the length of this post, I have a tendency to be overly verbose when a simple summation would suffice. So how's this: My 9th grade life sciences (read: sex ed) teacher ended his semester long course with us with this parting shot, "If you can't risk a baby or a disease, keep it in your pants." |
Foolproof solution, granted. However, it goes against human nature. People have always had sex and likely always will. Because of that, I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. "Rare" can be accomplished by:
---expanding educational opportunities.
---making contraceptives free and readily available.
---making the "morning after" pill available over-the-counter.
|
I definitely agree with making the morning after pill available. That is a type of abortion that I honestly have a hard time being against. They're not in any way shape or form recognizable cells at that point--I really don't care at that point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, using graphic images to make a point, I see. How splendid! Because now I get to put things into perspective for you. Yes, Kizzume, what you've shown is is truly horrible and we should do all we can to reduce or eliminate the need for such an atrocity. So what do you have to say about these little gems?
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images7/palestine/gaza_mother_dead_children.jpe
This one is of a Palestinian mother and her dead children in Gaza after an Israeli attack.
http://www.uruknet.de/pic.php?f=gunther.jpg
This one is of a child deformed by depleted uranium ammunition. The radiation left from bullets used in battle stayed behind along with the used ammunition, and caused birth defects. Cute kid, huh?
This girl got mangled pretty badly when she was killed. Her legs, especially, look like something you might find in your grocer's meat department.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I figured if you're going to play the dead kid card you might as well have a fuller understanding of just how little the human race really values human life. It's not pretty, but if you want to end the killing you're going to have to accept that we must address the causes that lead to killing. Slapping a band-aid on the problem, thinking that by outlawing the symptom you can solve it, gets you nowhere.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry about that--I was quoting the most extreme parts of the conversations--and interjecting a couple things. The original thread is located here: http://kizzume.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=deep&action=display&thread=1191748489&page=1
I should have posted that from the beginning. Sorry about that. 
I failed to put this thread in completely accidentally. I can't turn back now, unless I was to do something that could breaking people's trust or unless I just posted the whole thing in a series of quotes.
I really should have at least posted the link to the original the first thing, like I would a newspaper article.
I agree that those things are showing how grotesque are simply that, images that are showing awful things.
I was going to continue posting clippets--here are some:
Technocrat had a number of things to say about the subject:
| technocrat wrote: | Those images do look bad, but the looks of it don't really make it wrong. Most abortions, first off, take place in the first and early second trimester, long before there is any higher level brain functionality in the fetus. They look human, because they are human, but they aren't thinking people with selves. It's not the same as killing an adult or even a 5 year old child. Higher level brain waves are what's most important. At least with the quarter picture, that's not even a stage at which the fetus can feel pain. when it feels pain, it gets some moral consideration. It gets more consideration when it has higher level thought.
I don't see a problem with abortion if doctor in discussion with the mother decide to do it. When it's able to feel pain, then at least you should think about why you are doing it, but most probably do not do it willy nilly. |
| treehugger wrote: |
Abortion is sad......and I'd love to work to find a way to reduce abortions. However, that doesn't give the court the right to impose forced gestation and forced childbirth.
As I said before, we need to:
---Expand educational opportunities to those most at risk.
---Make contraceptives free and readily available.
---Make the "morning after" pill free and over-the-counter.
These steps will make marked progress towards reducing unwanted pregnancies.
| hackfest wrote: | | You say that "women are human beings" and should not be forced based on that fact. These are human beings too. |
I disagree (legally and medically). But, regardless, nobody has the right to use a woman's body against their will. Modern science needs to create another way to gestate the fetus/baby aside from inside the uterus of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.
| hackfest wrote: | | You also say that "Plus, outlawing abortion isn't going to stop abortion. It's only going to remove access to safe abortion." as if that were a true statement. Really?! It will ONLY REMOVE ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION? It won't DRASTICALLY reduce it? Come now, that's silly. |
Not silly at all. The only thing criminalizing abortion will accomoplish is ensuring that women DIE in unsafe, illegal abortions or in dangerous attempts to self-abort. Here's a picture for you:
This is a woman who was simply trying to retain her bodily autonomy, pre-Roe v Wade. This is what banning abortion would give us. Even though abortion's still techinically legal, this kind of thing is already happening in this country simply because of lack of money or limited access (i.e. the parental consent laws). Check out this article:
| Quote: | ?Most commonly, they ingest a whole bottle of quinine pills, with castor oil...we try to get them to the ER before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted...Sometimes they douche with very caustic products like bleach. We had a patient, a teen, who burned herself so badly with bleach that we couldn?t even examine her, her vaginal tissue was so painful....?
?Our local hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year, who have already self-induced or had illegal abortions. Some make it, some don?t. They are underage or poor women mostly, and a few daughters of pro-life families...?
|
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/23/reproductive_regression.php
Here's what's happening in South America as a result of abortion being made illegal.
Look, statistics from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute already indicate a consistent and steady decline in the incidence of abortion. What we need to do is push education and availability of contraceptives (two things the evangelical right are still passionately opposing). These are the keys to the problem - NOT forcing unwanted children into this world. |
My next post will give quotes from the last page of the debate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kizzume wrote: |
| technocrat wrote: |
| kizzume wrote: |
I view other animals as being the same as us. The only reason why we put humans above other animals is because we're human. Physically, as far as construction, we're inferior to most animals.
The more we can relate with an animal, the harder it is for us to kill it. A fetus is not something we can relate with very much until it really fully resembles a human.
These are the reasons why there are more moral issues about killing a fetus than a chicken--we can STILL relate to a fetus MORE than we can a chicken.
|
I think that's exactly how a lot of people think. You tend to have more empathy for something that is similar to yourself. Some people extend moral consideration based on the look of the animal. Personally, I don't. It's not really a factor for me how much the being looks like a human. It's the cognitive status: the mind, as well as the capacity to suffer. It's not that I don't think we ought to ignore any interests of the fetus. It can eventually experience pain; when it does, it deserves moral consideration, but not before. But even then, there are perfectly valid reasons to kill it anyway, even if it causes pain to it, because the hazards of pregnancy are very serious for the mother, and she has a far more mature cognitive status and can suffer more.
I give very little value to early fetuses, embryos, and zygotes before that. They have very immature cognition. I order organisms based on their capacity to think, feel. Personally, I think no fetus at any stage is worth the same moral consideration I would give to a 5, 10, 15, 60 year old, unless there were extreme circumstances. They have less to lose, they are less aware of what's going on, have far fewer, more limited preferences to thwart.
I don't think abortion should be outlawed at any stage completely, as I believe it should be up to the mother and the doctor. The idea of mothers running around getting late term abortions is a myth anyway. A very small group do, and often, it's for good reason. I especially think abortions should be allowed late term for euthanasia purposes if necessary.
Humans, I see them, are special because of their higher level cognition and ability to suffer. However, not all humans have these characteristics, either because they have not developed a cognitive status that allows it or because they were born defective or because something happened to reduce them to a lesser state. My ethics is based off of the actual characteristics of existent beings. If a being has the characteristic, its value is increased. If it lacks it, it is diminished respectively. Humans are inherently no more worthy of moral consideration than any hypothetical animal of equal intelligence, if it existed, because the fundamental basis for moral worth isn't based on the species, but the characteristics of the organism, which may or may not be present.
A baby born with only a brain stem is a human, just as a 15 year old is, but it would be absurd to consider the anacephalic infant (a baby born with only a brain stem) a person and give it greater intrinsic moral consideration than a fully functional bonobo chimpanzee. I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp. For humans who are on or less than the level of another non-human animal, there's really no intrinsic reason to treat it special just because it's human. It's just a hang-up society has because of Judeo-Christian morality and evolutionary group-morality.
|
So, basically, YOU believe that a being is only worth its intelligence?
| jq wrote: |
| kizzume wrote: | | t;]These are the reasons why there are more moral issues about killing a fetus than a chicken--we can STILL relate to a fetus MORE than we can a chicken. |
I disagree. We kill a chicken to EAT that chicken. Killing to eat is part of our nature. It is also part of many animal's nature. We don't eat babies; We can get our nutrition and protein elsewhere, therefore, killing a fetus/baby, is not the same as killing an animal, in concept or principle.
| technocrat wrote: |
I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp.
|
Babies are not mentally impaired. The difference between a chimp and a baby/fetus, is that the baby grows and has a very wide potential to learn and become intelligent. A chimp is just a chimp. So if you would rather save a chimp because it is smarter, you may want to consider the growth and learning potentials that it doesn't have compared to a baby/fetus.
|
Eating is part of our nature.
We don't eat babies because of our culture, fortunately.
No matter what, we can relate to a baby more than other animals because we KNOW that the baby can or will have the cognitive abilities that we have now--we know it will eventually be what we are--therefore, we can relate with the baby more.
|
| technocrat wrote: |
| Quote: |
Babies are not mentally impaired. The difference between a chimp and a baby/fetus, is that the baby grows and has a very wide potential to learn and become intelligent. A chimp is just a chimp. So if you would rather save a chimp because it is smarter, you may want to consider the growth and learning potentials that it doesn't have compared to a baby/fetus.
You are placing value on the potential, future personhood and traits. I am not. I focus on the actual, authentic characteristics. It makes little sense to attach current value on what something will, someday be. You are effectively giving rights and protections to something that isn't for what later it will have. That's like giving a prince the title of King and all it's rights and privileges because he will eventually be king. But we don't do that, because there's no logical connection between current X and rights and potential X and rights.
Of course a fetus isn't impaired; that's not the point of analogy: the lack of attainment of the requisite mental characteristics is.
I will still save the chimp because the chimp's developmental level is higher than the fetus and consequently, it has more interests formed, can suffer more. If you simply give "all" humans protection simply because they're human, you run into too many unpalatable problems. Mine has some, but fewer. An enbryo has the "potential" to become an adult. Under your system, it would have equal value morally intrinsically. I think that's appaling and disrespectful to the self-awareness, interests of the more advanced cognition of the adult.
| kizzume wrote: |
So, basically, YOU believe that a being is only worth its intelligence?
|
Kizzume, I believe that intelligence is a key criterion for valuing the moral consideration of an organism insofar as it relates generally to its capacity for interests and suffering. A being gets moral consideration because it can suffer, but more intelligent, more aware creatures can suffer more, and they have more, different types of interests that can be thwarted. A cockroach has very little intelligence, awareness. It has few interests compared to a chimp, thus it's worse to kill the chimp or hurt it than it is the cockroach. Likeweise, an embryo (human) has zero awareness, zero ability to feel pain, thus it's quite frankly preposterious to give it more moral consideration than a chimp simply because the Chimp's mental capacity gives it more, more important interests and suffering capacity.
Intelligence is important, but it intertwines with suffering and interest maximization. I can't maximize or thwart many interests of a fetus that doesn't have the cognitive capacity to think. It can't form them in the first place. When I torture the Bonobo, it's worse. When I kill it, I am thwarting future-oriented interests and negating the desires of a self-aware animal. Killing an early fetus is like brushing off some dead cells. It has no thought or feelings.
|
|
| kizzume wrote: |
Isn't that essentially the same thing though as being able to relate with it more?
|
| hackfest wrote: |
Nobody has the right to take up residence in someone's body against their will? It was their actions that did it. It was their will that made it so. It was so often their irresponsibility that creates the situation. They did it! If I drink too much and get sick, don't I have the right to not be imposed upon by the alcohol? It would be MY ACTIONS that caused it, and there's the responsibility and accountability that is proven non-existent in abortion. "Oh, I did this. I shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of MY OWN ACTIONS, I'll just abort." If you don't pay your rent, you should be exposed to hypothermia by not having a place to live. But by your logic, how can anyone do that to your body against your will?
You said the following (still having trouble busting up the quote feature, sorry)
If I have a strange, terminal illness and if feeding off your bodily resources would keep me alive, should a court mandate that you allow me to do this? Not hardly, huh? So why should a fetus have more rights than an already-born human being?
This is a horribly flawed argument., in the same way as your Terri Schiavo argument was. I did not make your condition come to pass. Even more so, I had NOTHING to do with your condition in the least. In reality, with what we're talking about, it is the OPPOSITE of your argument. Not only are you accountable to the situation, your actions MAKE the situation in its ENTIRETY. You can only claim otherwise in rape with pregnancy. Which is EXTREMELY low in numbers of overall abortions.
Forced to open herself up to a plethora of potential conditions and ailments?! Are you serious? You make it sound as if THAT is the cause for most abortions. Let's just stick with facts on those conditions and ailments by not labeling it with such spin. That's awful.
After doing research on the death penalty, I concede about the cost. But only the cost, and not the studies that show the fear of possible death preventing heinous crimes. But that is another subject entirely, and we can address that in another thread if you like.
Women not regularly having third trimester abortions only strengthens the fact that guilt comes into play in force about murdering an unborn child, and that it's far less accountable to do it in the beginning. It has everything to do with accountability and nothing to do with how lightly it's taken. Besides, I never implied lightly in the terms of care free, only to put it in perspective. If anything the reduction of abortion shows that people are being safer with sex, and better informed and educated, which studies will also show.
|
| jq wrote: |
| technocrat wrote: |
A cockroach has very little intelligence, awareness. It has few interests compared to a chimp, thus it's worse to kill the chimp or hurt it than it is the cockroach. Likeweise, an embryo (human) has zero awareness, zero ability to feel pain, thus it's quite frankly preposterious to give it more moral consideration than a chimp simply because the Chimp's mental capacity gives it more, more important interests and suffering capacity.
|
Brilliant. So then, if someone kills a retard by beating them to death with a shovel, we won't call it murder, because they are less intelligent and are therefore less aware of what is happening to them, and therefore it is okay!
|
| technocrat wrote: |
| Quote: |
Brilliant. So then, if someone kills a retard by beating them to death with a shovel, we won't call it murder, because they are less intelligent and are therefore less aware of what is happening to them, and therefore it is okay!
|
Non-Sequitor. That conclusion doesn't follow from my argument for a variety of reasons.
If someone killed a retard by beating him to death, it would certainly cause him severe pain and anguish, and thus be wrong on this grounds, unless of course, it was necessary to avert more pain and suffering. That's unlikely, though. Furthermore, killing him would still eliminate interests. Retarded people can be quite aware. Someone would have to be so retarded as to not know what's going on, and even then, it would cause pain.
It would certainly be less bad to kill a severely retarded person than to kill a normal person, but that's different from what you extrapolated from my argument. You are also hung up on "less intelligent," but they have the requisite intelligence of self-awareness and they are secondly able to feel pain, suffer. Just to a lesser degree. An embryo/zygote/early fetus has none of that capacity to suffer and cannot think at all. Beat them is literally like beating inanimate objects. They have virtually no interests to thwart, no pain, thus you cannot calculate their suffering or thwarted interests.
We surely wouldn't call punting a rock bad, because you cannot cause it pain, and it has no interests when you break it. A cockroach being killed is very similar: it has no conscious interests, isn't self-aware, can't feel pain. A zygote can't either. I go by actual in lieu of imaginary potential characteristics, valuing real people over potential people.
Moreover....the above quote you used was only arguing that it's worse to do A relative to B type scenario, not that it's absolutely ok to kill. then you go and conclude just that...it's absolutely ok to kill it because it's less intelligent. That doesn't follow. If anything, you would have to make a scenario wherein one is far less self-aware, intelligent, and then say it's less wrong to kill it than something far more aware, cognitively developed. That would be a good conclusion.
| kizzume wrote: |
Isn't that essentially the same thing though as being able to relate with it more?
|
Maybe in a roundabout way, but it's not based on it being similar or me recognizing that it's similar. It could look nothing alike and be very foreign. I look objective at its level of cognition, because that is important in the types of interests it can have. I try to maximize welfare interests, including minimizing pain and suffering. If an organism can feel pain, I gets moral consideration. If it has a lot to lose: future oriented desires, preferences, wants, killing or harming them can thwart them. That's generally bad.
When I kick a rock, I do nothing. An embryo and early fetus is only slightly higher than that. It's on the level of bacterial moral consideration, which is very low.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I should respond to Technocrat's last statement. (again I'm sorry this thread got messed off. )
I understand what you're saying. It's hard for me to look at it that way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the heads up. I suspected you were recreating an old thread, but I figured that even if you weren't some added perspective was needed. What really burns me about the abortion debate is that both sides take this hard-line position that does not allow for context. Rather than being a moral issue, it's become a control issue. Each side wants to control the dialog, with the consequence being that the underlying issue is ignored. Human beings do not value human life. This is a sad and undeniable fact. All we need do for confirmation is look at the horrible things we do to one another. Yet there are those who presume to tell us what is moral, what is not, and that if we don't follow some hypocritical and relativistic notion of morality we're damned. Likewise, there are those who tell us that it's about preserving choice, and if you oppose abortion you're opposing free will. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe, just maybe, both sides have some truth to them in this mess and that the truth is buried underneath all the layers of bullshit?
This is what I tried to do on my forum, uncover the truth that both sides can agree on. A large part of the problem is that abortion is a symptom of a larger ill, one that cannot be solved by a mere band-aid solution. Legalize or outlaw it, it's just a band-aid. Until or unless we address the conditions that necessitate abortion, we cannot hope to solve anything.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| archangelm wrote: | Thanks for the heads up. I suspected you were recreating an old thread, but I figured that even if you weren't some added perspective was needed. What really burns me about the abortion debate is that both sides take this hard-line position that does not allow for context. Rather than being a moral issue, it's become a control issue. Each side wants to control the dialog, with the consequence being that the underlying issue is ignored. Human beings do not value human life. This is a sad and undeniable fact. All we need do for confirmation is look at the horrible things we do to one another. Yet there are those who presume to tell us what is moral, what is not, and that if we don't follow some hypocritical and relativistic notion of morality we're damned. Likewise, there are those who tell us that it's about preserving choice, and if you oppose abortion you're opposing free will. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe, just maybe, both sides have some truth to them in this mess and that the truth is buried underneath all the layers of bullshit?
This is what I tried to do on my forum, uncover the truth that both sides can agree on. A large part of the problem is that abortion is a symptom of a larger ill, one that cannot be solved by a mere band-aid solution. Legalize or outlaw it, it's just a band-aid. Until or unless we address the conditions that necessitate abortion, we cannot hope to solve anything. |
Great post. Both sides definitely make good points. I just wish the technology was there to have alternatives to abortion.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
