Abortion and Morality

[Mare Tranquillity]

As a Pro-Life woman, I would like to say that I do agree with Pale's 3-point position. After trying to read through all these threads, keeping track of who is responding to whom and which issues exactly, I'm not sure that I advocate 'what Pale wants.'

Pale wishes to ban all abortions--though he might make an exception if the woman's life was in danger--and he would ban birth control, and he is in favor of prosecuting for murder any woman who has an abortion.

And on regular BC - I have no problem with it. I have no more problem with a medicine that prevents ovulation as it's primary effect than I have on eye surgeons implanting lenses in the eyes of people who have had cataract surgery. Both are an alteration of normal physical processes to obtain a particular purpose.

Right there you show yourself to more moderate than Pale.

You keep using Catholicism in your diatribe. Many Catholics disagree with their church's position. They may be closeted about it, for fear of excommunication, but they disagree none the less. Many who feel as Pale does, or as my variation, have no connection with Catholicism. Being Catholic is no prerequisite to being Pro-Life.

Don't confuse Catholics with Catholicism, the fact that many Catholics disagree with the churches position is irrelevant. Pale is advocating the same agenda pushed by Catholicism. I used the example of Catholicism because Pale is advocating it word for word, whether he is Catholic or not is irrelevant. The agenda is Catholic, if others agree with the Catholics that makes the agenda no less Catholic.

Your comparison to slaves is ridiculous. And it's insulting to African Americans. So you apparently would delegate me into your insensitive or even monstrous category. I'll refuse to play the politically correct game and simply say thank you. I take that as an honor.

If someone rapes you and you are required by law to give a year of your life to nurturing that rapists baby against your will that is the equivalent of slavery--there is more than one kind of slavery--but being forced to nurture and birth the baby of any man who can force a pregnancy on you is sex slavery even if you don't like the term. If you support that sex slavery then, yes, I think that's monstrous. Is there any age below which a female would be allowed to abort a baby forced on her by rape? Would 13 year olds be required by law to carry and birth rape babies?

Ceausescu in Romania made it a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion, that's why the orphanages were full to overflowing with sick and dying, neglected and unwanted babies whose mothers had been executed or had died from the after-effects of backalley abortions. As tragic as abortion is, outlawing it before we put in place programs to deal with millions of unwanted babies and laws to force men to pay for children they father, and provision for food, money, and medical care for all mothers and children in this country we will simply be walking the path of Romania all over again.

I am intrigued by your response to my posts, I will be very interested to see how you respond to this post and the previous one I made to you.

Actually in a debating situation, which these are meant to be, 'hominid attacks', which I assume you meant ad hominem are out of place. Ad hominem attacks are simply a personal attack in response to a stated position of another. It translates to "against the person".

I was making fun with the "hominid" reference. I know what ad hominem means. Pale has made personal attacks on me as well. The things he has posted are pretty hateful in my opinion.

To use you (since you used the phrase) and Pale (since your issue has been primarily with him) as an example: Pale states his position. You attack Pale personally. The supposed effect is that proves Pales position is incorrect. It does no such thing. The character, preferences or beliefs of Pale have no bearing whatsoever on whether his position is solid or not. As hard as I've tried, I see no substantive rebuttals from you. Cliches and emotional outbursts simply don't cut it.

If you agree with Pale then nothing I say will be valid--okay with me. Pale's position is that 98% of women murder babies for convenience and he has called them "evil", that sounds like an emotional outburst to me. It's also not true, he is using the term "convenience" to cover a lot of things that the people involved do not see as convenience, he has passed judgment on millions of women he knows nothing about. His whole approach has been emotional. I agree with him in that fetuses are human--or at least potential humans--but his right to life argument is completely unestablished, just as his "only humans have an inalienable right to life" statement is unestablished--do you agree with him on that? Why?

So there is something wrong with ad hominem attacks. There is also something wrong with your reference directly to USMC's position as a Marine. And I don't take orders from YOU, so since this is a public forum, I can respond to your post if I like, whether it was directed at me or not. Defending Pale, USMC or anyone has nothing to do with it. And you can just go ahead and feel free to call names all you want. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with that, but go ahead and feel free to continue!

If there is something wrong with ad hominem attacks then you should shout at Pale for it just as you have done at me. Fair is fair. As far as the Marine goes, you are off the beam there, he's the one who bills himself as USMC the Almighty, if his Marine-ness wasn't an issue he shouldn't bring it up. Please note that he ordered me off the thread--do you think that's his right? Would you leave the thread if he told you to? I'm not sure what names I have called anyone that annoys you, did Pale calling me a liar 17 times bother you too?

I'm glad you jumped into this discussion, it's nice to have another perspective from someone who is female and involved in a way that Pale can never be. If you are raped and willing to be forced by law to use a year of your life to carry and birth the rapists baby, then that makes a much stronger statement than anything Pale could write. Are you willing to do that?

 

[ArmChair General]

For the record mare, I think you've run over Pale in this debate, many times over.

Bravo.

Though, I think you should pretty much drop it by now. I think every position and argument worth giving has already been given, astute readers will see for themselves the merits of both.

Thanks.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

You would vote to outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape?

You know, this is something I've struggled with for years. I've had friends who have had abortions through the years. Some were for very "legitimate" reasons, some were not. Because of some of the incredibly difficult decisions some friends had to make I've felt emotionally torn about allowing abortion under rape and other extreme circumstances.

When it comes down to it, yes. I'd vote to outlaw all abortions, even in case of rape. I have to examine that part of me that says "But what about the poor woman? She's suffered a violent, horrendous assault! Wouldn't it be unfair to make her suffer further?" As horrendous as rape is, I cannot accept that another act of violence is justifiable. And abortion is another act of violence.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

As far as the Marine goes, you are off the beam there, he's the one who bills himself as USMC the Almighty, if his Marine-ness wasn't an issue he shouldn't bring it up. Please note that he ordered me off the thread--do you think that's his right?

I never ordered anyone off of this thread. If I wanted to remove you from the thread, I would just do it. I wouldn't have to ask.

What I meant by "remove yourself from the discussion" (and I see how my wording was poor) was that it would make your argument more appealing if you left your emotions and ad hominem attacks at the door and actually tried to refute palerider's academic arguments with sound logic and evidence.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

For the record mare, I think you've run over Pale in this debate, many times over.

Bravo.

Though, I think you should pretty much drop it by now. I think every position and argument worth giving has already been given, astute readers will see for themselves the merits of both.

Thanks.

Yeah, but Truth just joined the discussion. I find her willilngness to accept being raped and still spend a year of her life paying for and carrying, then birthing and paying for a baby forced into her by violence is a very powerful statement of her position, but I would not dare to vote for a law that would force ALL women to do that. Any woman who has that strength of conviction has my admiration, but I know that many women do not have it and all the laws and punishments in the world (look up Ceausescu) will not make them do it.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Pale wishes to ban all abortions--though he might make an exception if the woman's life was in danger--and he would ban birth control, and he is in favor of prosecuting for murder any woman who has an abortion.

Right there you show yourself to more moderate than Pale.

Prosecuting a woman for murder for having an abortion? While I do happen to think it is murder, it is something that since Roe v. Wade has been codified into a voluntary medical procedure. Therefore, what I hope for is that we can perpetuate a gradual but steady reversal of attitude about the pre-born and abortion. I know it's a cliche, but it's also true: Who knows? Maybe we've already aborted the person who would have found the cure for AIDS/cancer/etc. The term of human life as opposed to potential human life in reference to the zygote is semantics. The real issue is the potential of the human life.

Don't confuse Catholics with Catholicism, the fact that many Catholics disagree with the churches position is irrelevant. Pale is advocating the same agenda pushed by Catholicism. I used the example of Catholicism because Pale is advocating it word for word, whether he is Catholic or not is irrelevant. The agenda is Catholic, if others agree with the Catholics that makes the agenda no less Catholic.

I'm not confusing Catholics with Catholicism, although in large part (on a global scale) the two are intrinsically intertwined. I must disagree in generality about the agenda. My agenda (or yours, or Pales, etc.) may be influenced by a superseding agenda. But while my agenda may look and sound Catholic, it is not Catholic unless I am actively working in conjunction with Catholics. We may be both working toward the same, or very similar goals with near identical views but that's the end of the connection.

An analogy: Time warp, going back to pre-tractor days... A farmer has a field where he's going to plant corn. The field is larger than he needs. His neighbor tells him that he could use some extra planting space. So the farmer offers part of his field to the neighbor. The neighbor brings his mule over and starts working one end of the field. The farmer hitches up his ox and starts on his end. Both the farmers and both their animals are working toward the same goal, but they are not the same. The objective is to fully utilize the field. The farmer originated the plan, his neighbor agreed with the goal and set about it with his own agenda. The catch? The neighbor planted oats instead of corn. A shared goal, a related agenda, but not one and the same.

If someone rapes you and you are required by law to give a year of your life to nurturing that rapists baby against your will that is the equivalent of slavery--there is more than one kind of slavery--but being forced to nurture and birth the baby of any man who can force a pregnancy on you is sex slavery even if you don't like the term. If you support that sex slavery then, yes, I think that's monstrous. Is there any age below which a female would be allowed to abort a baby forced on her by rape? Would 13 year olds be required by law to carry and birth rape babies?

The same argument can be used in a number of situations. You get pregnant, find out your husband is a scum bag, cheating on you, involved in illegal activities, doing drugs, you name it. He was the one who wanted kids more in the first place, and you weren't happy about being pregnant. Your husband leaves you, so would that make that situation another form of slavery to continue your pregnancy?

So much of this is the terminology used. I'm not making light of the aftermath and recurring horrors for a woman who has been raped. But the rape itself is an event. If we embraced the basic understanding that pregnancy represents a developing, pre-born human being, why would we think of it as having a pregnancy the rapist forced on us, and that we had to endure? To do so is empowering him, in essence making ourselves more enslaved to him. You see it your way. Mine is that while there are so many bad things that happen to people, and consequences equally horrific, a pregnancy resulting from a rape could be one of the few really bad experiences that provide a positive outcome. If we choose to view it as such.

On this subject, Professor Stephen Krason points out that…"psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."

As in most problematic situations, education, support and genuine concern provide a valid alternative to another act of violence upon another innocent victim.

Ceausescu in Romania made it a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion, that's why the orphanages were full to overflowing with sick and dying, neglected and unwanted babies whose mothers had been executed or had died from the after-effects of backalley abortions. As tragic as abortion is, outlawing it before we put in place programs to deal with millions of unwanted babies and laws to force men to pay for children they father, and provision for food, money, and medical care for all mothers and children in this country we will simply be walking the path of Romania all over again.

Actually Ceausescu's Decree 770 in 1966 did not have a death penalty. I'm not sure where your information came from on that. The decree was not enacted for any value on human life, but as a means to increase the population in Communist Romania solely to provide Ceausescu with a greater workforce. He was an evil, wicked man. There were all kinds of conditions. Birth control was already prohibited. Abortion was the main method used for birth control, and the rates are estimated as high as 75% pre-1966.

After the issuance of Decree 770, the birth rate more than doubled. A woman could still have an abortion, but only if she had 4 children. Then that was raised to 5. Or if she was over 45. There were abortions allowed, but only when it didn't interfere with the goals of the State. The economy crashed, and untold parents were suddenly faced with more children than they could support. State-owned orphanages overflowed, and an on-going process of expanding them and filling them ensued. At the same time, the birth rate was dropping dramatically, partly due to "back alley" or self-induced abortions, but largely due to the lack of any kind of adequate prenatal care. The medical community, already stressed under a Communist regime, was overwhelmed at the tsunami the birth rate had become initially in 1967-68.

After the revolution in 1989 deposed Ceausescu, the gravity of the orphans' plight became known to the world. Religious organizations led the way in trying to get help to these children. Also, the abortion rate once again increased dramatically. Recent estimates have it once again around 75%, the highest in Europe.

I'm glad that you classify abortion as tragic. It is. But as bad as the Romanian situation was, and continues to be, it does not preclude the responsible creation of alternatives and support networks to reduce and/or near-eliminate abortion. If abortion becomes "outlawed" in this country, it will be a process, based on the value of human life in it's essence, not for the fodder of a nefarious dictator.

I am intrigued by your response to my posts, I will be very interested to see how you respond to this post and the previous one I made to you.

I was making fun with the "hominid" reference. I know what ad hominem means. Pale has made personal attacks on me as well. The things he has posted are pretty hateful in my opinion.

Sorry, sometimes it is hard to tell when someone is saying something partly in jest or in all seriousness. The black and white, written word tends to not relay well at times.

Uhhhh... let me put it this way. I don't think that either you or Pale have been especially nice to each other. But I don't think the two of you have displayed the unintelligible blitzkrieg portrayed at times in these threads.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Continued, Part II

If you agree with Pale then nothing I say will be valid--okay with me. Pale's position is that 98% of women murder babies for convenience and he has called them "evil", that sounds like an emotional outburst to me. It's also not true, he is using the term "convenience" to cover a lot of things that the people involved do not see as convenience, he has passed judgment on millions of women he knows nothing about. His whole approach has been emotional. I agree with him in that fetuses are human--or at least potential humans--but his right to life argument is completely unestablished, just as his "only humans have an inalienable right to life" statement is unestablished--do you agree with him on that? Why?

I don't know what the numbers are for the various reasons behind abortions. I'd have to do some research on that. His 98% could very well be correct, depending on what all is going into the "convenience" descriptor. Calling them "evil" is his opinion. Not necessarily an emotional outburst, but it might be filled with passion. If it sounds that way to you, it's your right to interpret as you will. Whether it's accurate or not I guess would depend on whether he's basing his statements on facts, or emotional hyperbole.

The women evil? I don't think I could say that at all. The essence of abortion itself is, I believe, evil. It is the destruction of human life. Intended or not, the act results in the desecration of God's greatest creation - Us! I don't know that Pale is actually passing judgment on the women, or on the act itself.

As I said before, it's difficult at times to track through some of these debates. Who is responding to what, by whom, etc. Yes, I think Pale is emotional, but it seems to me from a passion on the subject, not raw, blind emotionalism. His answers for the most part seem well thought out and if you choose to view them as unproven, either he has not communicated his position effectively enough to clarify it to you, he has not provided enough evidence, you have failed to connect with his evidence or you have rejected his evidence.

You feel that his "only humans have an inalienable right to life" statement is unestablished. I do agree with him on that. He is basing it on his firm commitment to the founding documents of the U.S. I share his belief that the acts, the words and the beliefs of the founders are instrumental in what has made this country the greatest bastion of freedom the world has, or probably will ever see. From the Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So yes, I agree with him.

If there is something wrong with ad hominem attacks then you should shout at Pale for it just as you have done at me. Fair is fair. As far as the Marine goes, you are off the beam there, he's the one who bills himself as USMC the Almighty, if his Marine-ness wasn't an issue he shouldn't bring it up. Please note that he ordered me off the thread--do you think that's his right? Would you leave the thread if he told you to? I'm not sure what names I have called anyone that annoys you, did Pale calling me a liar 17 times bother you too?

I wasn't shouting at you, Mare. I noticed the "liar" and wasn't sure exactly what he could be referring to. Much of your exchange had jumped back and forth, repeating positions, restating, etc. Yes, it did bother me, as it's not something I care to use lightly. Sort of like TRAITOR. It's just not one of those descriptive titles that I find easy to use. And if I hear it, I'm not comfortable if I'm not clear on what the basis is.

As far as USMC goes, I still think the ad hominem statement about something he'd be familiar with as a Marine, to paraphrase, was insulting. Why, as a Marine, would that cause familiarity with personal attacks? That was the way it read.

I'm glad you jumped into this discussion, it's nice to have another perspective from someone who is female and involved in a way that Pale can never be. If you are raped and willing to be forced by law to use a year of your life to carry and birth the rapists baby, then that makes a much stronger statement than anything Pale could write. Are you willing to do that?

I'll tell you what. I had my tubes tied about 20 years ago. If I were raped and ended up pregnant, without a doubt I'd carry the baby to term. If I ended up pregnant, I've either got a miracle or a doctor to find and sue. Joking aside, yes, I would. I believe that bad things happen to us, but we have a choice in how we are going to deal with it, in what we are going to make of it. Evil is real, and an evil done to me only has full victory over me if I react with evil. And since I do firmly believe the pre-born is a human life, worthy of respect and protection, I would be committing a greater evil than had been committed on me.

I love these discussions that make me do some soul-searching. I think if we all did a little more thinking about WHY we believe what we believe, and not just stating it, we might find that we've really got more to offer each other.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Truth,
My biggest problem with Pale and many of the other anti-abortion people is that they wish to start the process by banning abortions legally, they are adamant that FORCE is the best tool. This is a very masculine approach, beat on something until it starts working. In my experience it's also a very Christian appoach if one looks at the whole of Christian history.

As I have posted on this thread and on the other abortion thread I'd like to see us start on the other end of the problem by addressing the reasons that women are so desperate to get abortions that they will risk their lives for them.

We could start by making sure that there is medical care available for all mothers and children, that birth control is also available to every woman, that no woman is abandoned by everyone and left with no place to turn for help, sex education in schools, and laws that require a man who fathers a child to pay for that child's upkeep--right now enforcement is pretty lax. The difference between Pale and myself is that he is willing to convert at the edge of the sword and I am not, I wish to make sure that women have real options that make abortions unnecessary and convince them not to resort to it. I've know several women who have had abortions and NONE of them did it lightly, they all felt like they had no other choice.

In the end, before the fetus is viable, the decision is between the woman and God and all the laws in the world will not prevent her from aborting the fetus is she wishes to do so. I am not willing to dictate to all women what they must do, I'm not God, no matter how strongly I feel on the subject. Women are people, how far do we go to control the behavior of others?

You feel that his "only humans have an inalienable right to life" statement is unestablished. I do agree with him on that. He is basing it on his firm commitment to the founding documents of the U.S. I share his belief that the acts, the words and the beliefs of the founders are instrumental in what has made this country the greatest bastion of freedom the world has, or probably will ever see. From the Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So yes, I agree with him.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are giving the weight of Scripture to the words of the Founding Fathers. Pale has said that ONLY human life has an inalienable right to exist, but I doubt that is what the Founding Fathers meant, since they owned slaves and they were in the process of committing genocide on the indigenous peoples so that the land could be ours--it was called Manifest Destiny by religious folks and considered the Will of God. Where does this authority come from for humans to decide that ONLY we have the right to life? I'd like to have you address this issue, Pale of course would not because of his claim to being a scientist he can't provide anything to support this obviously religious claim. How about you?

The same argument can be used in a number of situations. You get pregnant, find out your husband is a scum bag, cheating on you, involved in illegal activities, doing drugs, you name it. He was the one who wanted kids more in the first place, and you weren't happy about being pregnant. Your husband leaves you, so would that make that situation another form of slavery to continue your pregnancy?

I'm not sure that marital sex can be considered "rape" unless it was actually forced on the woman with violence or the threat of violence (which does happen, I know). So your analogy is not accurate. You are still married and have legal rights and he has legal responsibilities, here's where the lax enforcement I mentioned comes to play, if he can abandon you and get away with it then the law is not working. This is something we need to fix before we condemn a pregnant woman with 3 kids under the age of 5, with no job except full-time motherhood, perhaps no home, no money, and no prospects, for getting an abortion instead of birthing a baby she can't care for adequately.

Professor Stephen Krason points out that…"psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."

Rape is a tough issue. Perhaps your Prof. Krason is correct, but the thing I noticed is that he said, "...when given the proper support," and that's the thing I think is missing in all of this discussion with Pale. We need to start on the support end of this problem not on the enforcement end.

All of these end up being gray areas with ramifications that you and I cannot possibly know the extent of, which is why I am so reluctant to RAM MY MORALITY DOWN EVERY WOMAN'S THROAT WITH THE FORCE OF LAW. I like the teachings of Jesus, but my problem with Christians is that they have been trying to ram their morality down everybody's throat for centuries.

Pale starts the discussion with the postion that women are murdering their babies for nothing but their own convenience (and he makes it painfully clear that he is using the word in the worst, most denigrating possible context), starting from that point requires a misogynist attitude that I do not share. I don't think that women are inherently evil and need to be controlled by men to make them behave. I think that the vast majority of women are decent people who will make the right choices if they have the opportunity to do so.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Truth,
My biggest problem with Pale and many of the other anti-abortion people is that they wish to start the process by banning abortions legally, they are adamant that FORCE is the best tool. This is a very masculine approach, beat on something until it starts working. In my experience it's also a very Christian appoach if one looks at the whole of Christian history.

This whole thing got my mind so churned up last night I ended up being awake until 3 a.m. Surprised I still got up by 8!

As I said yesterday,

If abortion becomes "outlawed" in this country, it will be a process, based on the value of human life in it's essence, not for the fodder of a nefarious dictator.

Because of the strong, largely emotional views on both sides of the issue, it is the only way that I can imagine it happening at all.

I'll have to get back on the rest. A few chores to do first...
I understand that the pro-life movement, in general, is not immune to an absolutist position at times. When people of like mind, here being the absolute conviction that life is precious and especially the vulnerable and innocent are to be protected, and all-or-nothing stringency may emerge. It is a fine line that I think pro-lifers need to guard against.

We cannot lose sight of the intrinsic value of the women either. Yes, we view the unborn as defenseless and the woman as being empowered in a life and death struggle. But Christians, especially Christians, should understand fully that God loves each of us. Not just some who do or say the right thing. I'm not discussing the Christian (my) view of salvation here, just God's essential love for us, each human.

I have to chuckle at the

very masculine approach, beat on something until it starts working

comment you made. My husband comes to mind... Seriously though, using force serves no purpose. Standing firm on a position, and being forceful in defending it is different.

Being masculine and Christian? Odd, but when I look at the whole of Christian history, and the whole of Christianity today, I see something very different. Yes, there are the evil-doers who have committed their atrocities in the name of Christianity, but from everything I know of him, there is nothing of him in their actions. Christianity is like any group of people, large or small. A variety of individuals, each carrying their own perceptions, experiences and "baggage." But on the whole, there has been no greater force for good in the history of mankind. They're not all like Mother Teresa, but there are many, untold many, who can stand in her class.

As I have posted on this thread and on the other abortion thread I'd like to see us start on the other end of the problem by addressing the reasons that women are so desperate to get abortions that they will risk their lives for them.

We could start by making sure that there is medical care available for all mothers and children, that birth control is also available to every woman, that no woman is abandoned by everyone and left with no place to turn for help, sex education in schools, and laws that require a man who fathers a child to pay for that child's upkeep--right now enforcement is pretty lax. The difference between Pale and myself is that he is willing to convert at the edge of the sword and I am not, I wish to make sure that women have real options that make abortions unnecessary and convince them not to resort to it. I've know several women who have had abortions and NONE of them did it lightly, they all felt like they had no other choice.

You know, I think for the most part we are on the same page. You say that Pale is willing to convert at the edge of the sword, but then some pro-choice advocates are willing to protect abortion in like manner. I've re-read some of the posts, and I cannot agree with you on the extreme regarding Pale. I think a lot of that falls back to situation of the black-and-white, written word not always conveying adequately.

In truth, except for a few specific areas, I think that you and Pale, or you and me, are not so different on this issue overall.

In the end, before the fetus is viable, the decision is between the woman and God and all the laws in the world will not prevent her from aborting the fetus is she wishes to do so. I am not willing to dictate to all women what they must do, I'm not God, no matter how strongly I feel on the subject. Women are people, how far do we go to control the behavior of others?

All laws are meant to control human behavior. Part of our difference is the status of the fetus itself. Most women typically do not realize they're pregnant until they are at least 4-6 weeks along. With technology advancing where premies have survived at only 21-22 weeks it is narrowing the gap between viable and non-viable. Amazingly, in almost every area of science the definition of life is, or similar to 'a living and/or growing complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.' When those first cells divide and multiply, this process has begun.

But if we can remove emotionalism and situational ethics and accept the concept that after fertilization of an egg is where life begins, we can begin to resolve the remaining issues.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are giving the weight of Scripture to the words of the Founding Fathers. Pale has said that ONLY human life has an inalienable right to exist, but I doubt that is what the Founding Fathers meant, since they owned slaves and they were in the process of committing genocide on the indigenous peoples so that the land could be ours--it was called Manifest Destiny by religious folks and considered the Will of God.

I am giving no weight of Scripture to the words that are not there within the words. They are the ones who acknowledged "endowed by their Creator" with these unalienable rights. They phrase it right, Pale uses exist. The context results in the same meaning. That they also owned slaves does not preclude their initial basic intentions. They had come from a culture in Europe where slaves and the indentured were common. Debtors prison was a reality. By our standards, it seems unenlightened, even reprehensible. But it was a cultural, nearly world-wide practice of the time.

Actually, they were not practicing genocide. This in itself is quite a long sequence of events which could be a whole other discussion. The Indians in question at the time, 1776, sided with the British against the Americans. It resulted in a total defeat for the Indians, causing them to escape to the west. But genocide was not even a blip on the radar scope for the Founding Fathers.

The "Manifest Destiny" you mention did not originate until 1839 or 1845; different sources claim the origin from two different documents. The origin was from writings by John L. O'Sullivan. The religious folk who glommed onto it no doubt did see it as the Will of God. No defense here for the atrocities that were committed. But again, this is another whole issue in itself.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, Truth,
What's our first step in dealing with the issue? Do we, as Pale desires, push for legal prohibition? Or do we try to find some way to address the underlying causes of the problem first?

 

[palerider]

Part of our disagreement comes from your poor reading comprehension skills. I never said that the information that you presented has been thrown out, quite the contrary. What you have thrown out is the information about all the ramifications of the legislation that you desire. You seem to have simply "thrown out" all the historical evidence (Romania comes to mind) and all of the interests and problems and competing interests involved in this complex, world-wide problem. You have continually kept your focus on "convenience killing" even to the point of denying a woman the right to keep her body from being used by a rapist and by arguing against birth control.

Nearly 2 BILLION killed in the pat 45 years. Keep on telling me how I am not being rational mare.

 

[palerider]

You've demonstrated no "right to live". The writers of the Constiution were men trying to set up a rational basis for government. Only white, male landowners were accorded full citizenship, slaves were given no rights, nor were the indigenous peoples. They talked about a right to live, they wrote about it, but they didn't grant it to everybody. In fact it was not within their power to grant it to everyone, all they could write down that they thought it was a good idea--and they didn't even do that, they granted rights to people like themselves. Subsequent court decisions have expanded the "right to life" but it was not in the original intent of the founders of this country.

Mare, the constitution does not "grant" you any rights at all. Our founding documents aknowledge those rights and establish a government to protect them. Not to grant you anything at all.

One of the big things you've passed over is why this putative "right to life" extends only to human life. You have stated that only humans have an inalienable "right to life", okay, where does that right come from that it doesn't cover other kinds of life? Big hole in your argument here, Pale. This is another one of the things you have written that is very religiously based--unless you have some explanation for this "inalienable right to life" that humans have to the exclusion of all other lifeforms.

Show me the documents that the animals have written mare.

All rights are not secondary to the right to life just because that's the order in which the founding fathers wrote it. As I have noted, there is a right not to suffer that can supercede the right to life, we euthanize animals all the time to prevent needless suffering. Oregon has an assistied suicide law that allows a suffering terminal patient to end their pain with the help of a medical professional if they are unable to do it for themselves.

Yes, mare. All rights are secondary to the right to live exactly because they are written in that order. Those documents are the basis of our law mare and they are written by a very exact legal formula that has not changed since long before they were written. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

You have taken some articles, quotes, and statements and tried to make them into absolutes that bind all humanity (this is another religious act) when in fact--just like all religious tenets--these are just your interpretations of someone else's thoughts written down. Other people interpret them differently and there is no way to prove that you interpretation is more accurate than anyone else's.

I have asked repeatedly for you to present any credibile evidence that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being and you didn't step up. I have proved my point mare and claiming that I haven't when you clearly can present no credible evidence to the contrary doesn't constititute an argument any more than gibbering catholic dogma over and over.

It's more difficult for me to argue some of these points with you because I agree with you up to a point, but I think that you are such an extremist that I cannot support your program. Your total denial of anyone else's interests being considered in this discussion makes your position untenable for me. You would sacrifice every woman on the altar of fetal life, you would legally reduce women to incubators for any man who can impregnate them--willingly or by violence. You would ignore the lives of the babies after birth--it's not your problem is it? There are more babies in the world now than there are loving homes for and you would happily bring millions more into a world where they are not wanted--but you haven't adopted any of them yourself.

I am not an extremist. Prove my basic points wrong, and I am on your side. If you can't, then you are simply wrong and I am not going to take an indefensible position.

And your hysterical handwring appeals to emotion ("incubators", "sacrafice every woman on the altar of fetal life", etc.) don't constitute arguments mare, they are, first, not true, and second no more than appeals to emotion.

Your position seems to be that life begins at conception and ends at birth, just the Alzheimer's poster boy, Ronald Reagan. I don't mind if you continue to call me a liar, your perception of women is clearly exposed to everyone by your posts to me on this thread, by your callous disregard for women's lives and women's right to control their own bodies, and by your strident demands that everyone else accede to your view of how unwanted fetuses should be treated. Not only would you not allow a raped woman to have an abortion, but you would deny all women the right to birth control.

Again, more emotional handwringing. I have never suggested that life ends at birth. To suggest that is just to lie mare. And again, I have no problem with whatever women do to their bodies, but abortion is not an issue about women's bodies, it is an issue about children's bodies.

And I have never suggested that I would deny women birth control (more lies). I have said that I would deny women abortificents.

Theocracy according to Pale, I want no part of the Hell that your vision of the world would visit on women and babies. Why you are not capable of learning anything from Ceausescu in Romania remains a mystery to me, he advocated basically the same things you are and it was an unmitigated disaster. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Nearly 2 billion killed in the past 45 years mare. More than were killed by stalin, lenin, mao, pol pot, hitler, mousilini, WW1, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the civil war and the Indian wars combined.

I'm sorry for you, your zeal makes you monstrous when it could be tempered and used to good effect in the drive to solve this problem, but you alienate people with your rigidity, stridency, and your single-minded condemnation of everyone who disagrees with you. Too bad, I think your heart is in the right place but your brain... isn't.

Prove my points wrong mare. That is the trick. I have boiled this issue down to its essence without the noise and those 3 points are what you are left with. They aren't religious mare and all of your objections won't make them so.

Provide me with an argument to kill unborn human beings within the framework of the law that you would accept against yourself if your own life were on the line in court and you will be at the beginning of a rational argument.

 

[palerider]

Pale wishes to ban all abortions--though he might make an exception if the woman's life was in danger--and he would ban birth control, and he is in favor of prosecuting for murder any woman who has an abortion.

You are a very dishonest woman mare. I have never said that I would ban all abortions. Terminating a pregnancy in self defense is a perfectly rational, if not tragic, reason to terminate a pregnancy. Self defense is a reason for killing another human being that would stand up in court.

And I would not ban birth control, I would ban abortificients.

And kindly describe what you would charge one human being who killed or had another human being killed with intent.

Don't confuse Catholics with Catholicism, the fact that many Catholics disagree with the churches position is irrelevant. Pale is advocating the same agenda pushed by Catholicism. I used the example of Catholicism because Pale is advocating it word for word, whether he is Catholic or not is irrelevant. The agenda is Catholic, if others agree with the Catholics that makes the agenda no less Catholic.

Don't confuse reality with fantasy mare. I am not catholic and the fact that come catholics might agree with me does not make me catholic. Calling me catholic doesn't constitute an argument on your part.

I was making fun with the "hominid" reference. I know what ad hominem means. Pale has made personal attacks on me as well. The things he has posted are pretty hateful in my opinion.

Bring forward any personal attack that I have made on you in lieu of arguing your point mare.

If you agree with Pale then nothing I say will be valid--okay with me. Pale's position is that 98% of women murder babies for convenience and he has called them "evil", that sounds like an emotional outburst to me. It's also not true, he is using the term "convenience" to cover a lot of things that the people involved do not see as convenience, he has passed judgment on millions of women he knows nothing about. His whole approach has been emotional. I agree with him in that fetuses are human--or at least potential humans--but his right to life argument is completely unestablished, just as his "only humans have an inalienable right to life" statement is unestablished--do you agree with him on that? Why?

I asked you to provide some senarios in which a woman might abort a child that don't fit the definition of convenience. To date, you haven't been able to come up with any. Convenience is convenience mare. The fact that you don't like it being called what it is isn't my problem.

Pale calling me a liar 17 times bother you too?

You shouldn't lie and I wouldn't feel the need to point out your lies.

 

[palerider]

For the record mare, I think you've run over Pale in this debate, many times over.

Oh goody. I am interested in seeing specific points she made that you believe have invalidated the basis of my position. I really am, please bring them forward.

 

[palerider]

So, Truth,
What's our first step in dealing with the issue? Do we, as Pale desires, push for legal prohibition? Or do we try to find some way to address the underlying causes of the problem first?

Which ways would we deal with the "problem" that we have not been working on for at least 40 years mare. Sex ed in school? Done it. Access to birth control in school and out? Done it? Free birth control? Done it? Tell me mare, what is your solution to the front end of the problem and keep in mind that while you are thinking, the killing continues at a rate of about 105 per minute.