Planned Parenthood

Sounds to me like you're talking about yourself.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Show me one slogan I bleat, or catchphrase I utter.

Pithy comments lose their power if they're completely inaccurate.

I’ve never thought a woman’s body was the only one involved because I believe that life does indeed begin at conception… but thus far, arguing this issue has gotten no where… which is why I said in my initial post that I thought people should stop arguing the right and wrongs of it and concentrate on education and research as a means to end abortion period (the exceptions being those extreme cases I mentioned). I’m not an expert on this by any means but I have seen the aftermath of a few back alley abortions and babies discarded in trash bins... there has to be a better answer for everyone concerned…

__________________

Oh, actually, I wasn't referring to you. While I haven't come to the same conclusion that you have (well, not exactly), there's no doubt you present a reasonable argument.

What I was referring to was more the fact that almost all pro-choice advocates sound exactly like Nikki. Basic logic shows us that saying "it's her body" doesn't make any argument whatsoever. It is wholly synonymous with "I think I'm right," and does nothing to explain or defend the pro-choice standpoint. What's funny is that, even as a pro-lifer, I readily acknowledge that you CAN make a decent case for the pro-choice side of things...but having taken part in a large number of these discussions, I must say that it's stunning how few pro-choicers actually do.

Yoda,

Since when did you start believing in the collective? You believe that no one should interfere with your money (taxes) but you think you have the right to say that women can not make decisions over their own bodies? The only thing you have the right to is to have an opinion about whether it's right or wrong to make an abortion, morally speaking. Not ever legally speaking. Because that is what you want, right? That abortions (except for rape pregnancies and other very special cases, yes, yes, I know...) should be illegal?

I would be interested in hearing what life experiences you base your semi-fascist views on. Ever made a lady-friend pregnant? You say "what about the baby" and "what about the father". Well, are you calling that good valid arguments?? When it comes down to it, in the end it is always the choice of the woman. And you wanna know why? Because the woman and the fetus are one - not two. And who should make the decisions over their common body? The fetus or the woman? You???

Nikki, don't bother with Yoda's ultraconservative attempts to insult your intelligence. You are 100% right. As long as an abortion is not performed without the woman having got proper and thorough counselling, involving the father (if he is around), and sometimes the woman's parents, plus within the time limit (what is it, 5 or 6 months?), it is always the woman, and nobody else but the woman, who can make the final decision.


what of the child?

Hell, what of the father?

Statement's like "it's her body" or "she has to live with the consequences" are ignoring the fact that what she's killing may not actually be her body.

Slogans of this sort simply do not address the pertinent question. Which is what question?

...and this is just from one single post of yours.

Not slogans? No? Thought them out for yourself? Well, I've got news for you. I have heard them a million times before by other pro-lifers so they are all S L O G A N S. Your entire case is an old tired cliché. I would like to hear, for once, one argument from you that is anchored to a social context instead of to ancient biblical values, thus being purely philosophical. You think women don't have enough moral or determination in them to make decisions for themselves?

If you're arguing angry, we can toss the possibility of a logical, enlightening discussion right out the window. You got pretty steamed the last time this issue came up, too, and we didn't really get anywhere until things cooled a bit.


"It's amazing how many people feel strongly about this issue, but are starting with the base assumption that the woman's body is the only one involved."

I believe in personal freedom whenever it does not plausibly interfere with someone else's personal freedom...and the right to life is the most basic of human freedoms. This is ignoring the fact that this particular sword cuts both ways: you only favor personal freedom that's not ecomomic?


Nope. I'm just applying Nikki's proposed logic to the entire situation. And no, I've never impregnated anyone. Ever had a friend murdered? Still oppose murder?


I think you're assuming, again, that they are one body. Not only is that quite unproven, but it's not even particularly likely. Biologically the notion is absurd.


I like this line of questioning. Let's continue it in another venue: who should make decisions for Siamese Twins? Who should make decisions over their common body? The one on the left? The one on the right? You???

The answer, of course, is that we lay ground rules so that they cannot violate each other's basic rights, and leave the rest of the choices up to them. This does not mean we are violating them or their rights...as a matter of fact, we're preserving rights. The same applies to the relationship between a mother and her unborn child.


And you're giving me crap for a supposed lack of argument? All you're doing is making assertions. What's more, if you call making a deductive observation "insulting someone's intelligence," then I plead guilty. I think it is telling, however, that you have not attempted to refute it. You just insist it's wrong.

And I can only assume "ultraconservative" is meant as an insult, though seeing as how I'm not a religious fundamentalist, or really anything even resembling one, the label seems oddly out of place. I wonder if you think of every pro-lifer as a "semi-fascist ultraconservative"? Is it just easier when you think of those who disagree with you that way?


"When does life begin?"

Obviously if it is a human infant, the pro-choice stance goes more or less down the drain. And if it's not, the same happens to the pro-life stance. Therefore, the entire issue hinges on the answer to the above question. And, as you'll notice, saying "it's her body" does not in any way attempt to answer that (or any other) question. Hence my claim that it is not an argument, but a mantra.


You're completely ignoring context. Nikki presented her view, and then the standard it was based on. I was demonstrating that her standard didn't seem consistent, as it ignored one (potentially two) other parties involved in the process.

And, if you'd read my posts, you'd also know that my gripe was with people using slogans in place of arguments. They read it, they repeat it, and that's it. My entire complaint was centered around pertinence, remember?


"Sounds to me like you're talking about yourself."

I think you're just lashing out now.


How, pray tell, are any of the claims I've made anchored in Biblical values? I also presume that you threw in "ancient" as some sort of slam, even though the bulk of your morality is identical to "ancient" principles.

Pretty much all morality is philosophic at a base level...but regardless, let's get down to the facts. You seem to regard philosophy as some sort of smoke and mirrors act (which is kinda silly, but I'll play along), and see arguments about social context as a step away from that. If this is so, then you shouldn't mind a biological analysis of the situation, as biology is even further removed from such things.

So, if you're genuine in your desire to get to the heart of the matter, you could start by telling me when a human life begins, and why. You know when I believe it begins, and probably why...so let's hear your side. You appear to believe that a fetus and a human are two different things, so tell me: biologically, when does a fetus become a human?


I can only assume this question is meant to inspire fear. Fear of being labeled a misogynist. The answer is simple, however: "women" are not a collective conciousness. I think some will make the right decision regardless of what the law says, and some will not.

I think you, Pid, would make the right decision concerning theft or murder if presented with the opportunity...but that doesn't mean I don't want the laws against those things in place anyway, and I think you do as well, even if you have quite a bit of confidence in the moral determination of most folks.

My pro-choice stance is based on something much simpler than what you guys are arguing about: I don't like the idea of the government telling anyone what to do with their body. The argument that life begins at conception is just fine, but the female is the host - it wouldn't be possible without her. Therefore, she has the final say in what happens, and it's nobody's place to tell her what to do.

The Spartans left weak children in the wilderness to die when they were born. This was common in their society. I don't think our society is in any position to moralize and say that since we're so civil, every child has the right to live regardless of any and all consequences. We're all human, we all have the right to make choices.

I have no problem with people who morally oppose abortion. But most often this argument is made from a secular standpoint rather than a practical one. It will happen no matter what; history proves this. So it seems much more humane to offer licensed and responsible physicians to these women who have made this choice, rather than punish them & put them at risk.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Look, Yoda.. I am going to say this short and simple: Human life starts when the sperm reaches the egg, and the life of a human being starts when he or she comes out of the mother.

There, I have answered the question. Can we continue the discussion now? And can we do it by discussing abortion and not theft or murder? Can we do it without comparing a pregnant woman to siamese twins? Jeez, that one was so weak.

My girlfriend would never even think about having an abortion and her faith (roman catholic) has probably a lot to do with that. But she is pro-choice because she thinks it's up to every woman to work out her position in the abortion matter. What, for the love of god, is wrong with that?

You think it's the same as taking an innocent life. And theoretically speaking, you are right. But you think this is the core of the whole thing, that abortion is the same as eliminating the possibility for that egg or that fetus to become a human being. Therefore should abortion be prevented at any cost. To me that is to simplify the whole matter in a very naive and oldfashioned way which, yes, is rooted in ancient christian (or religious, if you will) values. An abortion is always a very tragic thing but having an unwanted child is even more tragic. I suppose you will soon use the argument that pro-lifers are cold-hearted. That we are encouraging murder. Well, who is it here that is cold-hearted?? You repeatedly compare abortion to crimes like theft and murder. Or like it something women do between breakfast and lunchbreak. Like "What did you do today?", "Oh, I had an abortion.", "Really?? How was it??", "It was ok, much better than the last time, thank you.". To even speak about it as a crime makes me wonder if you are even close to comprehending what kind of a trauma the woman - and possibly the father - goes through. I am sure that there has been a number of women using abortions as a contraceptive, having one, two, three abortions. But do you think that woman would have been a good mother?

And to take away abortion as an option for the women is not only undemocratic but also being detached from modern society. It is also madness from a medical point of view since you can never "get rid" of abortions. Making them illegal would only make them more dangerous. Not eliminate them.

Do you think making abortions illegal would make the world better? I suppose you do since you support that standpoint. Please, explain why. I have answered you philisophical question about when human life start. Now please answer this question. How is not allowing women the option of having an abortion making the world a better place to be?

Yoda, you are constantly using the rethorical strategy of dismissing your opponents' arguments as "slogans" or "assertions" and accusing them of not addressing the real question. Nikki made it very clear where she stands in this matter, but since it didn't match your standpoint but was clear and logical enough for you not knowing how to deal with it, you had to dismiss is as a slogan and in a very patronizing way. You call it slogans and mantras but it just happens to be why people don't want to abolish abortion - they think it's up to the individual. But I am glad that you at least acknowledged your own arguments as being just as much slogans as mine or Nikki's. Because you did that, right?

I don't think of you as misogynal, I don't think you hate women. But you see things from a very conservative (i.e. male) perspective. And being called ultraconservative.. yes, I would take that as an insult too, but that is how I see you. I know pretty much what your basic political, religious and moral views are and they are ultraconservative to me. (Besides that, you are a nice guy).

Finally, who does the abolishing of abortions make the most happy? An unborn fetus or you?

BTW, I don't mean to be a jerk towards you, Yoda. Maybe I was a bit out of line in my post a few days ago. I apologize. But you drive me mad with your views and way of argueing sometimes...

Furthermore, this debate is non-existent on this level in Sweden so I am not very used to hearing your kind of views. Views that you have to understand are pretty far out by swedish standards. That's why they make me so angry probably.

Well this one sure went cold real quick...

Work. And I'm going on a trip this weekend that I have to prepare for. But I think I can sneak a reply in before then.

That said, lemme just say that I'm not upset or offended. I "get" what you said in your last post about it being, where you come from, a settled issue. I can understand how that could make debate on the matter a bit unnerving.

Why don't you just use the force?

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Who are you attacking this weekend?

I was referring to this argument.

The Force isn't good for booking flights. Packing clothes maybe, but not much else.

What did Obi One say when Luke Skywalker climbed in through the window?

"Use the doors, Luke"?

hihihihihihihi

I posted it here before, didn't I.... And I think I can recall that you thought it sucked.

I don't know if any of you guys have I child, but I do; and I can tell you that's the most wonderfull experience, the miracle of life begins as soon as the sperm fertilezes the egg, and within week a myriad of cells begin to form a really, really small human being.
And guest what? He/she has a heart, a early version of the brain, within the first months grows like crazy, it's unbelievable.
The fact is, that's it's alive,

why? because you made love to someone
why? maybe because you choosed so, maybe not
why? because for some reason, it was meant to happen

For every action there is a reaction, and every person should be responsible for their acts, even if you don't want that baby, there are options, there are thoundsens of couples that can't have a child by their own. And there are people that literally throw baby on the garbage, do you know how it's an abortion?

There are couple of choices, rip the little body apart, piece by piece, burn it in acid that it's introduced in the bag where the baby lives (I don't recall the english/medical term), there are some vaccumns that will suck the baby out. Not nice believe me.

Regarding choice?, the woman carries another body, is some else, it's not hers, sure it resides with her; but it's another life, anyway.

Just to be clear when I was younger, I thought just like some of you, pro-abortionist, I was kind of radical; but I changed my mind later, way before I got married.

I'm not trying to change your mind on this, I think I just needed to express my opinion on this matter.

But I can tell you that I'm glad of being alive, glad that my mother didn't hesitate for a second because she and my dad were just married, that they didn't hesitate for a second because they were too young, because my dad was still in college, I'm glad they had me, I'm glad that I can enjoy this world, with my baby boy.

Every one that cames to this world, comes for a reason. Always.

Later !!!

Every action is followed by a reaction and everybody should be responsible for their acts, yes. What kind of reaction is a broken condom? An abortion is a reaction too even if it's not as pleasant and amazing as giving birth to a child.

I respect your views - as long as you don't want to abolish abortion or stand outside clinics screaming "MURDERER!!!!!!".