What's your position on abortion? And why?

[James81]

Originally Posted by beast

inri, I am not reading your posts to be at all belligerent, and I totally don't see you as having "talked at" James. I might be biased because I completely agree with you.

James, you've posted repeatedly that many of us don't "understand" the pro-life position, but it just reads as a convenient way to write us off. Of course there might just be a gap here that can't be closed, but it really looks like you're also trying to speak for us, and making our opinions out to be something they are not.

Couple of things....

First of all, I never said she was being belligerent. All I said was that she was talking AT me, rather than talking TO me (and she apologized for that, so I'm only bringing it up because you brought it up, not because I didn't accept her apology or anything like that). And the REASON is because of what I quoted...she said "and you might say 'stupid'" as a reason for engaging in sex. "Stupid" is not a word I would ever use to describe for choosing to have sex (i.e. I don't believe a person's choice to have sex is rooted in stupid reasons). Thus, it occured to me that she was making assumptions about my point of view without even asking about it. Or, she was pre-empting what she thought might be something I personally feel about the subject that is driving my opinions (that is, that I take on the opinions of the typical "pro-lifer" person she has in her mind). Again, I don't bring that up for any other reason than to explain to you why I chose to stop that conversation. I'm becoming more and more apt to engage in debate/discussion with people who don't make assumptions about my point of view. It's something I don't do. I don't think I've made any assumptions about why you are a pro-choice point of view or make up arguements in my mind or reasons for why you might be pro-choice.

And I don't engage with people who do that. If you find places where I *have* done that (that is, I have told you WHY you are pro-choice), you are free to point them out and I will retract them. (I realize that sometimes this happens unconsciously.)

[beast]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Minus the speculation about what James is actually saying, minus the phrase you should have known better, and minus the phrase being stupid so it reads this way:

You know the consequences of having sex......therefore, deal with the consequences. I see someone who holds this stance as pretty much saying that a woman who enters into sex, not fully considering the possibility of becoming pregnant and as having a lack in judgment.

How is that not true. If you have sex there is a possibility that you will become pregnant. period. If you think there isn't, that is a lack of judgment. To make a comparison this is like saying I aimed a gun at my head and pulled the trigger but I never thought a bullet would come out.

But if a pro-life stance is really about the sanctity of life, then why do the circumstances of conception matter? That is what I am wondering, and what, I believe, inri is wondering.

Pro-lifers say - time and time again - that abortion is not about the woman, is not a women's rights issue. It is 100% completely about the right to life for the fetus (you can even see people claiming that exact thing in this very thread). If that is true, then why is abortion only okay in cases of rape?

When someone is in a car accident, you don't tell them "hey now, you know that can happen when you step in a car!", right? Maybe you do. (This comparison, by the way, is much more analogous than your "putting a gun to the head and pulling a trigger" comparison - but I still wouldn't deny medical treatment to someone who did that.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but I very much think of abortion as one way of dealing with the consequences of having sex.

[inri]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Minus the speculation about what James is actually saying, minus the phrase you should have known better, and minus the phrase being stupid so it reads this way:

You know the consequences of having sex......therefore, deal with the consequences. I see someone who holds this stance as pretty much saying that a woman who enters into sex, not fully considering the possibility of becoming pregnant and as having a lack in judgment.

How is that not true. If you have sex there is a possibility that you will become pregnant. period. If you think there isn't, that is a lack of judgment. To make a comparison this is like saying I aimed a gun at my head and pulled the trigger but I never thought a bullet would come out.

Not sure If i'm getting what you're throwing out here.....The post you quoted was a response to James who appeared to me to be saying he 'was not' referring to women who engage in sex without considering pregnancy a possibility....As being stupid or lacking in judgment.


I agree....we all know intellectually that sex lead to pregnancy...however, sex is one of those things that due to it's nature, kind of lead us away from our intellectual faculties.....While it may indeed demonstrate a lack of sound judgment for two people to engage in sex without thoroughly considering the possible outcome of pregnancy...the REALITY is...it happens all the time....hence the abundance of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that occur.

Sure, it is well within a human's ability to control our sexual urges....but it would appear that it's just too much fun to give into them....a lot of the time!

Sexual urges seem to have a way of canceling our ability for sound judgment.

[beast]

Originally Posted by James81

Couple of things....

First of all, I never said she was being belligerent. All I said was that she was talking AT me, rather than talking TO me (and she apologized for that, so I'm only bringing it up because you brought it up, not because I didn't accept her apology or anything like that).

I know you didn't say that. I don't make a habit of actually hallucinating at my keyboard!

I was responding to her post, which I believe, said something about being sorry if she came off as angry. I wanted to reiterate my support for what she said, and the tone in which she said it. I know that I've made some angry posts in this thread (it is hard for me not to, in an abortion thread) but I don't believe that inri has. That particular part of what I was saying had nothing to do with you.

And the REASON is because of what I quoted...she said "and you might say 'stupid'" as a reason for engaging in sex. "Stupid" is not a word I would ever use to describe for choosing to have sex (i.e. I don't believe a person's choice to have sex is rooted in stupid reasons). Thus, it occured to me that she was making assumptions about my point of view without even asking about it.

I don't believe that she was talking at you in that case, either. I think a good response to her would have been exactly what you said in the post above. By accusing her of "talking at you" and saying that you didn't read further, you're also inhibiting communication.

The idea that a woman is foolish for willingly engaging in sex and then having an abortion has been widely propagated, even within this thread. "It shows a lack of judgment, it's akin to holding a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, etc". I'm not saying you've done this (I honestly don't know if you have) but it's something which we have seen time and time again.

[James81]

Originally Posted by beast

The idea that a woman is foolish for willingly engaging in sex and then having an abortion has been widely propagated, even within this thread. "It shows a lack of judgment, it's akin to holding a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, etc". I'm not saying you've done this (I honestly don't know if you have) but it's something which we have seen time and time again.

That's the mere definition of "talking at" me. You realize that right? If you can't see that, then I think you might want to take a step back and breathe a bit.

I'm telling you outright...I don't hold that opinion. I am the one she was talking to. I'm not that pro-lifer who says that, so don't address or assume it as such in a conversation with me.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by beast

But if a pro-life stance is really about the sanctity of life, then why do the circumstances of conception matter? That is what I am wondering, and what, I believe, inri is wondering.

Pro-lifers say - time and time again - that abortion is not about the woman, is not a women's rights issue. It is 100% completely about the right to life for the fetus (you can even see people claiming that exact thing in this very thread). If that is true, then why is abortion only okay in cases of rape?

When someone is in a car accident, you don't tell them "hey now, you know that can happen when you step in a car!", right? Maybe you do. (This comparison, by the way, is much more analogous than your "putting a gun to the head and pulling a trigger" comparison - but I still wouldn't deny medical treatment to someone who did that.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but I very much think of abortion as one way of dealing with the consequences of having sex.

Beast and Inri This response will cover both of you even though I only quoted Beast.

I think the car accident analogy is much more apt. I think that question you said about then why is it okay in cases of rape? Is a really good point. I absolutely think abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences. Yeah sex can make you kind of stupid. I think the problem comes in here in the fact that I haven't read this whole thread (it's a little long.) I just saw that one quote and it really jumped out at me, out of context it seemed to be implying the opposite of what it was really saying, so my reaction was more like oh come on we're not letting people off the hook that easy are we? My bad.

[beast]

Originally Posted by James81

That's the mere definition of "talking at" me. You realize that right? If you can't see that, then I think you might want to take a step back and breathe a bit.

I'm telling you outright...I don't hold that opinion. I am the one she was talking to. I'm not that pro-lifer who says that, so don't address or assume it as such in a conversation with me.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

No, I think our communication styles just do not jive, and that's okay.

I never said that you hold that opinion, and neither did inri. She might have been quoting you, but in a public messageboard, I know that no matter who I quote, I am, in a sense, speaking to everyone. I could also see myself inserting something of the sort into a comment, and it not being a reflection - at all - on what I believe the other person's opinion to be.

So, perhaps you could follow your own advice to step back and take a deep breath, because nobody is making these assumptions about you.

[beast]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Beast and Inri This response will cover both of you even though I only quoted Beast.

I think the car accident analogy is much more apt. I think that question you said about then why is it okay in cases of rape? Is a really good point. I absolutely think abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences. Yeah sex can make you kind of stupid. I think the problem comes in here in the fact that I haven't read this whole thread (it's a little long.) I just saw that one quote and it really jumped out at me, out of context it seemed to be implying the opposite of what it was really saying, so my reaction was more like oh come on we're not letting people off the hook that easy are we? My bad.

Thank you for your gracious reply.

I would, really, be interested in hearing more from pro-lifers on this matter.

[James81]

Originally Posted by beast

I never said that you hold that opinion, and neither did inri. She might have been quoting you, but in a public messageboard, I know that no matter who I quote, I am, in a sense, speaking to everyone. I could also see myself inserting something of the sort into a comment, and it not being a reflection - at all - on what I believe the other person's opinion to be.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "you" than I do? I usually say "you" when I'm addressing someone that I'm speaking to.

Here's what she said:

(and perhaps you'd even say, 'stupidly')

Again, I apologize to inri for reiterating this. It's old hat stuff. It didn't create an emotional reaction in me or anything like that. I just say it as a sign that she might've been making assumptions about my point of view that weren't there, and my preference is that people check with me as to what my point of view is before they make a point about an assumed point of view I *might* have.

That's all I got for this discussion, though. You can assume what you want from this point forward, beast.

[spacecadetglow]

Huh, I took that as a general "you." Like, impersonal second person.

[beast]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Huh, I took that as a general "you." Like, impersonal second person.

Yeah, for real. Who actually says "one"? I still use "you" because it sounds better for me.

James, I don't like your snark here, and I especially dislike snark combined with grinning faces, so I think it's best if we nip this right here and bring it back to the abortion debate.

[James81]

Originally Posted by beast

Yeah, for real. Who actually says "one"? I still use "you" because it sounds better for me.

James, I don't like your snark here, and I especially dislike snark combined with grinning faces, so I think it's best if we nip this right here and bring it back to the abortion debate.

That's fine. There's no snark intended though, so if you're reading snark into my comments, then you might be doing the very thing that you were saying that I did.

In any case, you're right. Moving on...

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by beast

Thank you for your gracious reply.

I would, really, be interested in hearing more from pro-lifers on this matter.

Well me too since I'm not one.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

Out of curiosity, what does the idea of miscarriages have to do with abortion?

Are you all saying that because causes beyond our control cause more pre-natal humans to die that that means it's ok for us to go ahead and throw in and be a cause for that to happen as well? Like, welp, so many babies are already dying before they are born, we minus whale just go ahead and start killin' 'em as well?

No. The allusion to miscarriages is to show that a majority of fertilized eggs don't come to the fruition of birth. My belief about these many spontaneous abortions that happen more often than continued pregnancies is that the unconscious mind -- the mind-body connection -- for whatever reasons, recognizes sub-optimal condition(s) for this fertilized egg or embryo to develop and thrive: chromosomal problems, inadequate uterine lining or other uterine problems, hormone levels or infections, etc. So it pulls the plug, because it's not ecological for the pregnancy to continue.

Is that the unconscious mind murdering innocent babies? Does it mean the mother is being irresponsible? No, I don't think so.

My feeling is that, as brilliant as the unconscious mind is at making these determinations and arrangements, that does not preclude conscious determination of the ecology into which a fertilized egg or embryo will grow. We can make conscious evaluations and recognize sub-optimal conditions for this egg/embryo to develop and thrive, and our next right action may very well be to pull the plug, because it is not ecological for the pregnancy to continue. The evaluation may be accurate or inaccurate, depending on the skill of the evaluator, but I trust the person in whose body that particular pregnancy occurs to make the evaluation, regardless, much as I see people making choices that to me look pretty dumb, but I still view that person as being the best possible person to make an ecological evaluation, and take his or hear next right actions, for the health of the whole.

Of course, there may be actions for ME to take in consequence: voting, educating, assisting with emotional concerns, whatever, to make my own contribution to ecology, and I trust that others (like pro-lifers) are doing the same, even the ones whose beliefs differ from mine -- for instance, the folks who believe that it is GOD who is in charge of those ecological determinations, like an external, interventionist god, not the unconscious mind of the pregnant person; or folks who feel that the potential baby's right to life is not to be messed with by the potential mother's conscious intervention, even if they do trust womens' unconscious minds to effectively and morally take care of business.

So, that's the correlation I was thinking of.

[Angela]

As an aside, when someone tells me, "Perhaps you'd even say {xyz}" I wouldn't interpret that as someone making an assumption about what I'd say, I would interpret that as someone speculating about what I might possibly say. The speculation itself is the "checking it out," albeit not in a question form. So I wouldn't shut down the conversation and stop listening generously; I'd simply let the person know that that particular aspect of their mind-reading isn't accurate, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Angela

As an aside, when someone tells me, "Perhaps you'd even say {xyz}" I wouldn't interpret that as someone making an assumption about what I'd say, I would interpret that as someone speculating about what I might possibly say. The speculation itself is the "checking it out," albeit not in a question form. So I wouldn't shut down the conversation and stop listening generously; I'd simply let the person know that that particular aspect of their mind-reading isn't accurate, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Heh, well I'm facing some issues surrounding the balance between listening and being heard right now, so I probably acted a bit rashly in that regard.

So, an apology back to inri for shutting the convo down like that or making an accusation to that regard.

(Although I think others dismisal or evaluation of my decision to do that was uncalled for, personally. That is, just because I recognize I might've acted irrationally on that statement doesn't negate that that's how *I* perceived it.

Gremlins be damned. )

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by beast

I would, really, be interested in hearing more from pro-lifers on this matter.

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Well me too since I'm not one.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that, regardless of what you call it, a fertilized egg is human life. Period.

Hence, to me, "abortion" means the abortion of human life. Period. Regardless of the circumstances of conception.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Ask, and ye shall receive.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that, regardless of what you call it, a fertilized egg is human life. Period.

Hence, to me, "abortion" means the abortion of human life. Period. Regardless of the circumstances of conception.

There's lots of us who keep saying "period." I did it. I saw Angela say it at one point. inri said it. Now you.

For some reason, this makes me chuckle. We all have our strong opinions here, don't we? LOL

If you all are like me, your opinions are so strong because you've debated this subejct to death and back and then picked up a stick and beat the **** out of a dead horse, and then you picked up the horse and said "Hey ****face! I'm not through with you yet!" and then you yelled and cursed at the deat horse that you hold by shoving your hand up its ass and working it like a puppet and than you take out a chainsaw and saw at your arm and realize it's made of steel so you start beating your own puppet wielding steel arm that's working the dead beated horse with the chain saw.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

... just because I recognize I might've acted irrationally on that statement doesn't negate that that's how *I* perceived it.

I totally agree. Impacts are *real* and they have real consequences for everyone, like the ripples on a pond.

[beast]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Ask, and ye shall receive.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that, regardless of what you call it, a fertilized egg is human life. Period.

Hence, to me, "abortion" means the abortion of human life. Period. Regardless of the circumstances of conception.

Sorry, I was referring to a different question. It was: If the pro-life stance is based wholly on a belief in the sanctity of life, then why are the circumstances of conception relevant? Why does it matter if the fetus was conceived through rape or consensual sex?

[beast]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

First of all, I still believe that a human life begins at conception. Whether you call it an "embryo", a "fetus", or a "baby," it is still where we all start out in our physical existence. I also think that anyone countering this claim does not see the simple fact of the matter, and is likely making excuses in a lame attempt to justify the termination of human life.

I agree that life begins at conception. This belief does nothing to lessen my pro-choice stance.

[secrets0stolen]

I thinks there's a difference between "life" and "should be kept alive at all costs"...anyone who eats knows this.

There's also a potential difference between "life" and "personhood".

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by James81

There's lots of us who keep saying "period." I did it. I saw Angela say it at one point. inri said it. Now you.

For some reason, this makes me chuckle. We all have our strong opinions here, don't we? LOL

If you all are like me, your opinions are so strong because you've debated this subejct to death and back and then picked up a stick and beat the **** out of a dead horse, and then you picked up the horse and said "Hey ****face! I'm not through with you yet!" and then you yelled and cursed at the deat horse that you hold by shoving your hand up its ass and working it like a puppet and than you take out a chainsaw and saw at your arm and realize it's made of steel so you start beating your own puppet wielding steel arm that's working the dead beated horse with the chain saw.

Interesting analogy, James. But, I'm not beating any dead horses, here. For me, it's a matter of simple definition.

I mean, what is a fertilized egg but the very beginning of human life? What is an embryo? What is a fetus? At what point does one call a human life a human life?

Some people, of course, view an embryo or a fetus as no more significant than a wart on their elbow. But even a wart on your elbow is part of your body, part of your physical existence, and therefore, still a life form. The difference is that a wart isn't likely to grow into a self-contained human being.

This is why I use the word, "period". Whatever term you want use to label it, you'll never be able get away from the fact that human life begins at conception.

[beast]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I thinks there's a difference between "life" and "should be kept alive at all costs"...anyone who eats knows this.

There's also a potential difference between "life" and "personhood".

Yes. I accept that a fetus is alive in the same way that I accept that plants and mosquitoes are alive (and just to pre-empt it, because I know it is coming, no - I am not comparing the three, except to say that they are all alive). I don't think that the pro-choice movement does itself many favors by denying this.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I also think that anyone countering this claim does not see the simple fact of the matter, and is likely making excuses in a lame attempt to justify the termination of human life.

{Just an aside to MOUNDS -- Tim, I wanted to plant a flag in this one for you to examine, regarding complex equivalence.}

[Solipsist]

My apologies, beast. I'll give you the pro-life position on your more specific questions, then...

Originally Posted by beast

Sorry, I was referring to a different question. It was: If the pro-life stance is based wholly on a belief in the sanctity of life, then why are the circumstances of conception relevant?

They're not.

Why does it matter if the fetus was conceived through rape or consensual sex?

It doesn't.

Anyone asserting any different, isn't really pro-life, in my estimation, they're only paying lip service to the pro-life position.

Originally Posted by beast

I agree that life begins at conception. This belief does nothing to lessen my pro-choice stance.

This is exactly where I stand, too, beast.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I thinks there's a difference between "life" and "should be kept alive at all costs"...anyone who eats knows this.

I agree, secrets, which is why I'm also not against doctor-assisted suicide. Ultimately, real "choice" boils down to the same premise.

There's also a potential difference between "life" and "personhood".

I dunno about this one, secrets. Almost sounds like an attempt to justify, rather than a logical premise.

I mean, what do you mean by 'potential difference'? Does your assertion mean that a human life is sometimes not a 'person?' Where does one draw a distinct line between 'life' and 'personhood?'

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I mean, what do you mean by 'potential difference'? Does your assertion mean that a human life is sometimes not a 'person?' Where does one draw a distinct line between 'life' and 'personhood?'

What's your position on abortion? And why?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I mean, what do you mean by 'potential difference'? Does your assertion mean that a human life is sometimes not a 'person?' Where does one draw a distinct line between 'life' and 'personhood?'

Well, in our culture, we draw it at human. I don't know where it "should" be drawn or whether the concept makes any sense, I'm just challenging the wisdom of that assertion.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Well, in our culture, we draw it at human. I don't know where it "should" be drawn or whether the concept makes any sense, I'm just challenging the wisdom of that assertion.

I really don't think the culture makes any difference. Again, it's a matter of simple definition. Anything beyond that seems either argumentative, or, as I stated before, an attempt to justify.

[beast]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

My apologies, beast. I'll give you the pro-life position on your more specific questions, then...They're not.
It doesn't.

Anyone asserting any different, isn't really pro-life, in my estimation, they're only paying lip service to the pro-life position.

Well, thank you for your honesty. I have heard very, very few people admitting that they are against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, though.