What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Agota]

I get what you're saying about "NO CHILDREN WANTED". There's a trick with it, though: sometimes people set up such a strong intention not to have kids, that they're unable to have them when they want to. You have to know how to stop intentions like that, because from what I've heard, it's not as easy as setting up a new intention (..and the couple in question didn't set an intention consciously, they simply decided to have kids once they have proper jobs, house, car, etc., yet they we're unable to do so once they got everything until they killed the intention).

I think that the best method for protection should be taoist practices where men learn not to ejaculate when having sex, meanwhile women learn to stop their periods when they don't have an intention of having kids in foreeseable future and then to resume their periods again once they want to get pregnant. It's done to save sexual energy, because men lose it via ejaculation and women lose via having periods. Oh, I'd love to learn this one, because it's not only you don't have periods, don't need any protection, but you also preserve energy and stay young and beautiful way longer than women usually do. And then there is redirecting sexual energy to spiritual development to get realizations faster. Sounds awesome to me

[Andrew Gubb]

Well, when I set up that intention it was actually a bit milder. "No children for the moment". You could try "No children until further notice". It's not exactly Law of Attraction, more like just making a notice about what you're interested in at the moment, to all those who may be concerned.

[Peterw]

My position is that I don't take people's strong opinions seriously.

I went through this earlier this year when my partner decided she couldn't go through with it. I didn't agree with her decision but I supported her anyway and now we're going through councelling and planning to start a family next year if we still can.

You got a problem with that then you can go forth and multiply

How's that?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Ah, ok.

Apologies, It's not an excuse but I can say my bitchiness this morning was partly due to it being 'that time of the month', which I didn't discover until after I logged out, and I also have a fair bit of stuff going on right now in my life. No harm intended.

Also, I never really thought of "noob" as being a put down, and just discovered today that it was. In my world someone only being a new poster does not equate with knowing nothing, unless their posts suggest a consistent level of unbearable ignorance.

I'm fairly new to the Internet, so I didn't really get the meaning behind the word, and that's why I couldn't work out why you would take it as an insult.

You weren't bitchy at all, nor is there a need for YOU to apologize, because you said nothing wrong.

[Curious cat]

I know i am derailing here, but i don't think anyone would mind considering you're all probably pooped out now after the fire has run it's course.

My first impression of the label noob was that it wasn't meant in a friendly manner. Just something i picked up through my years of playing world of warcraft, where noob was a roll off your tongue insult during a nerd rage. Ahh such good times though, mad fun, teehee.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You weren't bitchy at all, nor is there a need for YOU to apologize, because you said nothing wrong.

I just wasn't sure if I came off a bit too bitchy? It can get pretty confusing here at times. I suppose I second guessed myself.

It happens, especially at certain times of the month and I have random ♥♥♥♥♥ attacks.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Curious cat

I know i am derailing here, but i don't think anyone would mind considering you're all probably pooped out now after the fire has run it's course.

My first impression of the label noob was that it wasn't meant in a friendly manner. Just something i picked up through my years of playing world of warcraft, where noob was a roll off your tongue insult during a nerd rage. Ahh such good times though, mad fun, teehee.

For the horde!!

[DerekB]

Urban Dictionary: noob

II. Defining 'Noob'
Contrary to the belief of many, a noob/n00b and a newbie/newb are not the same thing. Newbs are those who are new to some task* and are very beginner at it, possibly a little overconfident about it, but they are willing to learn and fix their errors to move out of that stage. n00bs, on the other hand, know little and have no will to learn any more. They expect people to do the work for them and then expect to get praised about it, and make up a unique species of their own.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Again, they didn't call YOU a noob, and your opinion of another person and someone elses opinion of you, doesn't magically make the difference between an opinion and an attack.

lol derek left me a negative rep for this. He accuses ME of taking things to personally.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

lol derek left me a negative rep for this. He accuses ME of taking things to personally.

You kept, and indeed, keep ignoring me every time I've explained to you why you're belief she wasn't talking to me was wrong. If other people here feel I should be neg repped just because they don't like what I have to say, why shouldn't you be neg repped for completely ignoring what I say and than saying (incorrectly) that I'm wrong time and time again despite me explaining extremely clearly why you were wrong and I wasn't. I did it so simply a 1st grader should be able to understand she was addressing me. I didn't leave bad rep for anybody until they unfairly did it for me. Blame Cado and yourself if you're upset about me having a perfectly valid complaint about your post(s) and behavior.

[Criseyde]

Gosh, maybe James was right. Maybe this forum can't handle the rep system.

Please keep the thread on topic. And, if you believe the rep system is being abused, please PM me or any of the other mods rather than retaliating in kind.

[aelle]

Jesus Christ. Since we're now on PM demands for explanations about this off-topic discussion (Criseyde I promise this will be my only contribution to this nonsense)...

My post was addressing both Carolyn and Derek, who both posted short and very black-and-white messages, within a couple of hours of each other, at the end of a complex and nuanced discussion that they evidently hadn't read.
I do know that noob is an inflammatory term (nerd, daugther-of-nerd, sister-of-nerd and partner-of-nerd here), I used it deliberately and apologized for it as soon as I got up the next morning. I had no idea the discussion would get so silly for so long.
It isn't even the relevant part of my original message. I could just as well have said "I love when people awake a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion "

Now for the love of all that is holy, can we please drop it. Kthanx.

[MariconesUnited]

What a lively conversation you peeps are having

Where do I stand? Legally, I'm for it. Ethically, I believe it's a case-by-case thing. And I don't see why my opinion matters to the people getting those abortions

As stated earlier, abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Pandora's box has been opened. Might as well make it safe for the mother.

I have to say however that I don't buy into Aelle's zygote argument

Originally Posted by aelle

Zygote personhood:
- An embryo can split and result into monozygitic twins. If an embryo can result in two separate people, how can it be a person?

For the same reason DerekB pointed out. Just because we're uncertain how many people will come out of a single zygote doesn't mean there isn't at least one person in there. There may be more eventually, but we have to concede that there is one now.

The question of finding out when an embryo becomes aware and when it can be given legal rights is an interesting one. I don't have clear answers to those.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I have to say however that I don't buy into Aelle's zygote argument
For the same reason DerekB pointed out. Just because we're uncertain how many people will come out of a single zygote doesn't mean there isn't at least one person in there. There may be more eventually, but we have to concede that there is one now.

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Personhood refers to the status of a being with regards to their individual human rights - note the use of the term individual. It's not just a matter of common definition, but of a legal one, and I think the term was used that way in Roe vs. Wade. Personhood legally implies that this entity with rights and duties is separate and distinct from other entities.

If it can become two persons, then by definition it is not an individual. It has the potential to become an individual, and so does an unfertilized egg.

[MariconesUnited]

I'm sorry I don't see the cop out? If the zygote multiplies it becomes 2 individuals. But just because there's that possibility doesn't mean it isn't one now. Why would it?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I'm sorry I don't see the cop out? If the zygote multiplies it becomes 2 individuals. But just because there's that possibility doesn't mean it isn't one now. Why would it?

Because individual means one, unique, separate, distinct from others.

[MariconesUnited]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. I'll try to rephrase. When a zygote is a zygote, there's only one. An individual zygote. If it multiplies, then there's many individuals. So one could say a zygote is an individual now with the potential of becoming many individuals in the future. Makes perfect sense to me. No?

[James81]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

As stated earlier, abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Pandora's box has been opened. Might as well make it safe for the mother.

There was a time when I bought into this argument (and you see it tossed around a LOT during abortion discussions), but I don't think I buy into it anymore. I think it's a cop out.

I do not believe in making something legal JUST because people are going to do it whether it's legal or not. People steal all the time, should we make that legal so it's safer for the thieves?

I think that IF abortion were illegal and people still chose to get them, then that is a choice that THEY make, and with that choice they assume the risk that is involved with it.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by James81

There was a time when I bought into this argument (and you see it tossed around a LOT during abortion discussions), but I don't think I buy into it anymore. I think it's a cop out.

I do not believe in making something legal JUST because people are going to do it whether it's legal or not. People steal all the time, should we make that legal so it's safer for the thieves?

I think that IF abortion were illegal and people still chose to get them, then that is a choice that THEY make, and with that choice they assume the risk that is involved with it.

Did I miss some memo? Is the word cop out the word of the day?

Your line of arguing makes it obvious that you're a man. No offense intended. But you seem insensitive to women's suffering. There are countries where abortion is strongly frowned upon you know. And there's been places where it's been made illegal. Women have and will find ways to have abortions if they feel desperate about it, whether it is legal or not. Their lives are at risk in these instances.

I don't think your stealing analogy holds up. Stealing will have a negative effect on society most of the time. The same can't be said about abortions.

Also...You said something which I disagreed with...Back in January. In this thread. I'm wondering if bringing it up now is considered fair game. Thoughts?

PS. No...I did not read the entire thread

[James81]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Your line of arguing makes it obvious that you're a man. No offense intended. But you seem insensitive to women's suffering.

This is also a cop out (not sure if that's the word of the day ). The reason that THAT is a cop out is because you cannot make an accurate assessment of that based on my position on this one issue. I think you fail to realize that the people who are pro-life are coming at it from a completely different perspective than the pro-choice peeps.

That is, a pro-life perspective is very baby-centered. That is, a pro-life person is usually making arguments while thinking of the potential baby.

On the other hand, the pro-choice perspective is very woman-centered. That is, a pro-choice person is usually making arguments while thinking in terms of the woman's rights.

My point being that because I take a pro-baby mindset in this discussion, does not mean that I am anti-woman. I think it would do for a LOT of people who are pro-choice to understand that. In the same way that pro-choice are not baby murderers, pro-life people are not anti-woman.

In other words, it's a GIANT stretch for you to take what I said about the legality of abortion and make it about me being insensitive to women's suffering. Because the argument has nothing to do with women's suffering. A woman getting an abortion when it's illegal is not a woman's suffering issue. That's a CHOICE that she makes. If that choice brings suffering, then, again, she chose that. It wasn't forced upon her to go have an illegal abortion. That was the point I was making. Don't just automatically negate the element of choice in that situation. A woman does not HAVE to stick a coat hanger up her vagina. She chooses to do that. And in choosing to do that, she assumes the risk that is involved with it.

So, you might say I'm Pro-Taking-Responsibility-For-Your-Choices.

[ssandra]

Looking at this from a baby centered perspective, wouldn't you agree that it might be better to not be born instead of being born where you are not wanted?

If you believe in reincarnation, rather then suffer through a youth where you are unwanted, try again with new parents that want and love you?

If you don't believe in reincarnation, rather then suffer through a youth where you are unwanted, be in heaven right away? Or, if you are not religious, be back to nothing, back to dust?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Looking at this from a baby centered perspective, wouldn't you agree that it might be better to not be born instead of being born where you are not wanted?

If you believe in reincarnation, rather then suffer through a youth where you are unwanted, try again with new parents that want and love you?

If you don't believe in reincarnation, rather then suffer through a youth where you are unwanted, be in heaven right away? Or, if you are not religious, be back to nothing, back to dust?

People with bad/unloving parents can still lead perfectly happy lives. Also, if parents were that terrible why even keep the baby (as in adoption, not abortion)? If they don't love it its just a financial drain as far as they're concerned.

I'd much prefer being alive to being dust, especially since I'm very skeptical about an afterlife.

[James81]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Looking at this from a baby centered perspective, wouldn't you agree that it might be better to not be born instead of being born where you are not wanted?

Again, that assumes that the baby is not wanted.

For anybody who has ever had a child, there is a HUGE difference between finding out you are about to have a child and actually holding your child in your arms the day he/she is born. It's a pretty amazing shift.

But understandably, that doesn't ALWAYS happen, it is possible that the parents change their mind once the baby arrives.

On the flip side, even IF they still don't want the child, it doesn't mean that nobody, nowhere will ever want it. Life is pretty amazing, and having a chance at living, complete with all the complexities of it is a pretty amazing experience. And it's all a matter of CHOICE.

I think that NOT being born is limiting choice moreso than actually being born.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by James81

This is also a cop out (not sure if that's the word of the day ). The reason that THAT is a cop out is because you cannot make an accurate assessment of that based on my position on this one issue. I think you fail to realize that the people who are pro-life are coming at it from a completely different perspective than the pro-choice peeps.

We should switch to some other word. This one is losing its meaning already

You're right that I can't make sweeping generalizations based on this one conversation. I'm remembering older threads to make that assessment. But that's neither here nor there. So I'll just stick to saying you're being insensitive to women's suffering here, now. In this thread.

Originally Posted by James81

That is, a pro-life perspective is very baby-centered. That is, a pro-life person is usually making arguments while thinking of the potential baby.

On the other hand, the pro-choice perspective is very woman-centered. That is, a pro-choice person is usually making arguments while thinking in terms of the woman's rights.

I try to see it from all angles.

Originally Posted by James81

My point being that because I take a pro-baby mindset in this discussion, does not mean that I am anti-woman. I think it would do for a LOT of people who are pro-choice to understand that. In the same way that pro-choice are not baby murderers, pro-life people are not anti-woman.

Very true. And I'm not saying that you're anti-woman either. Just that you seem to lack any kind of empathy for them. Of course I'm just going by your line of arguing here in this thread.

Originally Posted by James81

In other words, it's a GIANT stretch for you to take what I said about the legality of abortion and make it about me being insensitive to women's suffering. Because the argument has nothing to do with women's suffering. A woman getting an abortion when it's illegal is not a woman's suffering issue. That's a CHOICE that she makes. If that choice brings suffering, then, again, she chose that. It wasn't forced upon her to go have an illegal abortion. That was the point I was making. Don't just automatically negate the element of choice in that situation. A woman does not HAVE to stick a coat hanger up her vagina. She chooses to do that. And in choosing to do that, she assumes the risk that is involved with it.

So, you might say I'm Pro-Taking-Responsibility-For-Your-Choices.

See when you say the issue has nothing to do with women's sufferings I can't help but think you're not taking everything into account in your assessments. And I didn't mean to negate the woman's choice. I'm sorry if it sounds like I did. My point is that some women will choose to have abortions whether they are legal or not. Why not offer them the choice to do it safely as opposed to limiting their choices to self-inflicted wounds, getting shady unqualified ''doctors'' to do it for them, or having a baby that they don't feel they can support?

You have to realize that in a lot of these places where abortion is criminalized, religious dogma plays a much more important role. And most women who want abortions in these countries are either poor, relatively uneducated, or both. These are real people. Real suffering. We don't know if there's suffering involved for the foetus and to what extent.

As I've mentioned already I haven't read the entire thread. Would you mind summarizing why you're pro-life? To understand where you're coming from?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by DerekB

People with bad/unloving parents can still lead perfectly happy lives. Also, if parents were that terrible why even keep the baby (as in adoption, not abortion)? If they don't love it its just a financial drain as far as they're concerned.

I'd much prefer being alive to being dust, especially since I'm very skeptical about an afterlife.

A common line of reasoning within pro lifers. Some people just have a harder time understanding the idea of nothingness. The reason you prefer being alive to not existing is precisely because you are alive. Had you been aborted the question would never have crossed your mind...You wouldn't have a mind. You simply wouldn't exist. Maybe you might have felt some sense of pain before ceasing to exist. Nothing lost.

[ZephyrusX]

By this, do you mean to say that men and women are morally obligated to reproduce so long as they have the potential to do so?

Originally Posted by DerekB

If you hold humanity in equal esteem with manatees and plankton, than you are entitled to do that. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that humanity is above all else, that we are the "chosen" species if you will. Human being's natural purpose, our primary imperative, is to reproduce. I'm not too worried about sea-otter abortions (though I read they're quite controversial in the latest edition of the Wall Street Journal).

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

By this, do you mean to say that men and women are morally obligated to reproduce so long as they have the potential to do so?

No, what I meant was that as a species we should assure our continued existence. Nobody *has* to reproduce. I'm merely saying that it is our primary biological drive, and enough of us must reproduce to ensure the continuity of our species.

Edit: If the survival of humanity was dependent on one person reproducing or not (highly unlikely I imagine...) than I suppose yes, they would be morally obligated to reproduce.

[MariconesUnited]

I don't get Derek's line of reasoning Zeph. On one hand, humans are the ''chosen'' species (by whom? ), on the other hand, our primary imperative is...reproduction? Doesn't sound at all different from any other species' primary imperative to me. How exactly are we special and above other species I wonder?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

A common line of reasoning within pro lifers. Some people just have a harder time understanding the idea of nothingness. The reason you prefer being alive to not existing is precisely because you are alive. Had you been aborted the question would never have crossed your mind...You wouldn't have a mind. You simply wouldn't exist. Maybe you might have felt some sense of pain before ceasing to exist. Nothing lost.

"It is better to have loved and lost, than never loved at all".

That's about how I'd sum up my argument with your point. Let me know if you'd like more elaboration.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I don't get Derek's line of reasoning Zeph. On one hand, humans are the ''chosen'' species (by whom? ), on the other hand, our primary imperative is...reproduction? Doesn't sound at all different from any other species' primary imperative to me. How exactly are we special and above other species I wonder?

We aren't special because of our imperative to reproduce...not sure where you got that idea. We're special because we have the unique cognitive ability to ponder our existence, to philosophize, to create art and music. You get where I'm going with this I assume.