Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

Should be allowed to kill someone that reminds me of that trauma? None. That make me feel like killing someone for that trauma? Quite a few, although there aren't any of them I'd care to discuss.

But you are ok with killing a child because it might remind a woman that she was assaulted by someone else.

The misogyny lies in likening a woman's desire to abort a child produced by rape to a simple matter of convenience. It has nothing to do with whether or not that abortion ought to be allowed and has everything to do with understanding the motivation.

Mysogyny is a hatred or dislike of women. Your explanation does not even begin to suggest that I hate or dislike women. If the woman wishes to kill a child because it reminds her of the assault, then what else could you call it but convenience? Your argument is not rational. It is based in emotion.

Convenience is defined as: 1. anything that saves or simplifies work 2. anything that adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 3. a convenient situation or time 4. advantage or accommodation

Being reminded of an assault would certainly make one uncomfortable and action that adds to one's ease or comfort would certainly be an action taken for convenience. I didn't write the dictionary. Words mean what they mean. Perhaps you are willing to unilataraly redefine words to suit your purpose, but I am not.

Lumping abortion in rape cases in with abortion in cases of, say, forgotten condoms is an incomplete likeness. The two cases are similar in that abortions are being performed, and you say abortions are wrong, so that is enough for you. However, the two cases are wildly different for the people who experience them - in the latter, it is a matter of convenience, whereas in the former, it is a matter of deep trauma and mental health. To liken the two without an acknowledgment of the extreme difference between them is to disregard the thoughts and feelings of women - after all, there is an extreme difference in the thoughts and feelings of rape victims versus those of women who just couldn't be bothered with using protection one night.

I asked you to name some situations in which you are OK with killing someone who reminds you of an assault committed by a third person. You couldn't name any and yet, you are making the argument for killing a child because it might bring memories of its violent father. Someone is deserving of the full punishment of the law up to and including death. Are you arguing that it is the child?

It is an oversimplification simply sit back and say, "This is wrong. Don't do it," without taking into consideration some of the motivations for the action. Those motivations don't necessarily make it right, but if you truly wish to solve a problem, you must understand it.

It is a simple problem. Women don't want children so they are killing them.

I understand that women are killing their children because those children are less than convenient and nothing short of legal measures aimed at stopping the killing is going to help. We have had decades of sex ed, free birth control, etc. etc. etc. and the killing continues.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

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?

Well, this discussion moved on quite a bit since I got waylaid on Sunday! My!

Mare, what should happen probably won't. It would involve major pro-life activists sitting down with their counterparts from the pro-choice side. It would involve setting aside differences and trying to focus on the issues that are in agreement. Among those:

1) All are concerned with the welfare and protection of women.
2) All can agree that better support networks need to be developed for any "at-risk" mother. My term for any woman who is in a health, financial, familial, etc. situation.
3) Abortion is in essence a drastic, final solution. Irrevocable, with potential devastating repercussions for a woman and her family. (I'm not sure on this point there is agreement, but if all are honest it should be.)
4) Many underlying causes (poverty, domestic abuse, emotional distress, etc.) can and should be corrected, or at least improved upon and minimized.


There may be other common ground points, but even this would be a start. It probably won't happen, unless and until people are more or less forced into finding solutions.

I think that is part of the reason why pro-lifer's are so adamant about overturning, or at least revisions on Roe v. Wade. Knowing that a consensus with the opposition is probably impossible and with such a drastic consequences as we see it, a shift in law could start a process of dialog.

Late-term partial birth abortions are especially intolerable. It should be clear to all that it is morally and ethically wrong to partly remove a baby from the womb and with it's live body in hand suck it's brains out. I believe firmly that any woman even contemplating this procedure should have to watch a very graphic film of one, at the very least.

I think this could also be a major step in the right direction, for all abortion clinics, hospitals that do the abortions, family planning counselors, etc. to have to provide full information and graphics on what an abortion at any stage is. For women to be fully informed of what their fetus is like at the stage they are contemplating the act.

The women's movement in this country has done a bang-up job on keeping this information from women, from "protecting" them from the gruesome details. Well, if it's gruesome, why not show the so that they know exactly what it is they're doing?

Or is it to keep the definition as a parasite, a blob of human plasma that has no substance, no life, no meaning in domination? Who exactly is this empowering? Certainly not women, when they are making this ultimate decision in ignorance. More information is given out about what exactly happens when you have arthroscopic surgery on your knee than when you have an abortion.

Well, I think that there are places to start...

 

[Coyote]

What is it if not a matter of convenience. The only reason you might give is that it would be a constant reminder of her rape.

Would you accept this argument if it were your life on the line?

"Your honor, we move that coyote be summarily executed because he reminds my client of a terrible time in her life. We realize that killing him won't erase that time from my client's life, and that the terrible memories will remain, and that he is guilty of nothing, but your honor, my client says that he deserves to die none the less.

Would you meekly let them insert the needle on the validity of such an argument?

It is not so simple and clear cut. Bearing and raising a child concieved in violence should be a choice not a mandate. It is not simply a matter of being reminded but being forced to carry, nurture, birth and risk mortality or health consequences, even suicide if depression is a consequence -- all against your will. And you've done nothing whatsoever to deserve it.

 

[Coyote]

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

You say that, but I don't completely agree (yet).

 

[palerider]

It is not so simple and clear cut. Bearing and raising a child concieved in violence should be a choice not a mandate. It is not simply a matter of being reminded but being forced to carry, nurture, birth and risk mortality or health consequences, even suicide if depression is a consequence -- all against your will. .

The woman can certainly give up the child. She may legally leave it at a fire station or a police station, no questions asked.

And you've done nothing whatsoever to deserve it

And the child has done exactly what that it should die?

 

[palerider]

You say that, but I don't completely agree (yet).

There are people who won't agree with you if you state that the earth is round. What they beleive, however, is irrelavent to what is.

 

[vyo476]

But you are ok with killing a child because it might remind a woman that she was assaulted by someone else.

I didn't say that, did I? What did I say...oh, here it is: Those motivations don't necessarily make it right.

Mysogyny is a hatred or dislike of women. Your explanation does not even begin to suggest that I hate or dislike women. If the woman wishes to kill a child because it reminds her of the assault, then what else could you call it but convenience? Your argument is not rational. It is based in emotion.

Convenience is defined as: 1. anything that saves or simplifies work 2. anything that adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 3. a convenient situation or time 4. advantage or accommodation

Being reminded of an assault would certainly make one uncomfortable and action that adds to one's ease or comfort would certainly be an action taken for convenience. I didn't write the dictionary. Words mean what they mean. Perhaps you are willing to unilataraly redefine words to suit your purpose, but I am not.

It is not a rewrite of the meaning but an interpretation.

Falling into a rose bush makes a person uncomfortable. Accidentally insulting someone's mother makes a person uncomfortable. Rape is on a scale much, much larger than mere discomfort - it leaves a marked psychological trauma. Abortion in rape cases has more to do with mental health than "convenience." Failure to recognize that demeans the feelings of women who are victims of rape - basically, it's saying that rape isn't that bad, and they shouldn't complain so much.

Then again, bigotry and intolerance is almost always rooted in ignorance, so I wonder why I'd even try to make you understand why you're a misogynist.

Someone is deserving of the full punishment of the law up to and including death. Are you arguing that it is the child?

No. Once again, I never said that. As I've mentioned before I've yet to formulate an opinion on abortion; I'm just jumping in to point things out here and there. Look back through the thread and you'll find that I've pissed off the pro-choicers about as much as I've pissed off you.

It is a simple problem. Women don't want children so they are killing them.

There are precious few "simple problems," especially in regards to social/legal issues. Tell me, pale - do you suppose this problem would be so simple to you if you yourself were a woman?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, this discussion moved on quite a bit since I got waylaid on Sunday! My!

Mare, what should happen probably won't. It would involve major pro-life activists sitting down with their counterparts from the pro-choice side. It would involve setting aside differences and trying to focus on the issues that are in agreement. Among those:

1) All are concerned with the welfare and protection of women.
2) All can agree that better support networks need to be developed for any "at-risk" mother. My term for any woman who is in a health, financial, familial, etc. situation.
3) Abortion is in essence a drastic, final solution. Irrevocable, with potential devastating repercussions for a woman and her family. (I'm not sure on this point there is agreement, but if all are honest it should be.)
4) Many underlying causes (poverty, domestic abuse, emotional distress, etc.) can and should be corrected, or at least improved upon and minimized.


There may be other common ground points, but even this would be a start. It probably won't happen, unless and until people are more or less forced into finding solutions.

I think that is part of the reason why pro-lifer's are so adamant about overturning, or at least revisions on Roe v. Wade. Knowing that a consensus with the opposition is probably impossible and with such a drastic consequences as we see it, a shift in law could start a process of dialog.

Late-term partial birth abortions are especially intolerable. It should be clear to all that it is morally and ethically wrong to partly remove a baby from the womb and with it's live body in hand suck it's brains out. I believe firmly that any woman even contemplating this procedure should have to watch a very graphic film of one, at the very least.

I think this could also be a major step in the right direction, for all abortion clinics, hospitals that do the abortions, family planning counselors, etc. to have to provide full information and graphics on what an abortion at any stage is. For women to be fully informed of what their fetus is like at the stage they are contemplating the act.

The women's movement in this country has done a bang-up job on keeping this information from women, from "protecting" them from the gruesome details. Well, if it's gruesome, why not show the so that they know exactly what it is they're doing?

Or is it to keep the definition as a parasite, a blob of human plasma that has no substance, no life, no meaning in domination? Who exactly is this empowering? Certainly not women, when they are making this ultimate decision in ignorance. More information is given out about what exactly happens when you have arthroscopic surgery on your knee than when you have an abortion.

Well, I think that there are places to start...

It's interesting, I've had to work for a living for the last few days, but I've been thinking about it and we have come to a similar conclusion--with a couple of differences.

I think the two most likely scenarios are both bad. Either nothing much will be done OR the Pales of the world will manage to change the law--a la Romania. The problem is that there is no real reverence for life in the great mass of people in this country. You are unusual in that you would cherish even a child of rape, but I see nothing to make me think that you have very many soul-sisters out there and I don't think that Pale has your dedication either, he talks a good fight, but it isn't him being raped or having to give birth.

Most people don't care about the lives of others or we would have health care for everyone and no one would be homeless and we would not have homeless children and... the list could go on and on. I respect your position, but I think that Pale is a vast hypocrite since all he's doing is trying to stick women with all the blame and all the punishment. He admits that he hasn't adopted any unwanted babies and he hasn't said a word about all the homeless children already living in this country. Unlike yourself he has no credibility, he has chosen to attack women for killing fetuses because HE has decided that they are innocent--it's easy for him because it costs him nothing.

If nothing really changes then the abortions will continue, if the Pales of the world prevail and they manage to outlaw abortion and birth control, then the abortions will continue--perhaps at a reduced rate, perhaps not--but women will be stigmatized, punished, and bear all the burden of the new prohibition, but the Pales of the world will feel that they have done their part and they will NEVER campaign for the real changes that would be required in this culture to truly address the underlying causes of the perceived need for abortions because it would require THEM to pay a price.

I think that the we (as a culture) will not face the problems and do the necessary work to change the view that abortion is a necessity. It's easy to legislate morality and punish others, but agreeing that our cultural perspective is deficient and that we all need to see the value of life differently is very, very difficult. An example is Pale, he's judged fetuses as being innocent, but is willing to torture someone ON THE POSSIBILITY of them having information that would be useful--their lives have no value to him because he has judged them to be guilty. There is no universal reverence for life, we protect those we judge to innocent and ignore or persecute the ones we judge guilty. Unfortunately there is no agreement on who is innocent and who is guilty and we have not evolved to point that we can do as Jesus said and "Judge not".

 

[palerider]

Falling into a rose bush makes a person uncomfortable. Accidentally insulting someone's mother makes a person uncomfortable. Rape is on a scale much, much larger than mere discomfort - it leaves a marked psychological trauma. Abortion in rape cases has more to do with mental health than "convenience." Failure to recognize that demeans the feelings of women who are victims of rape - basically, it's saying that rape isn't that bad, and they shouldn't complain so much.

More emotionalism. There are people who are psychologically scarred and carry life long fears because a dog barked at them. Psychological scars, however, are not a valid reason to kill another human being.

Then again, bigotry and intolerance is almost always rooted in ignorance, so I wonder why I'd even try to make you understand why you're a misogynist.

I understand perfectly what both a bigot and a misogynist is and as much as you would like to twist the definitions, you can't hang them on me. It is interesting that you have now resorted to personal attacks in lieu of actually arguing my points as well. To me, that smells like victory.

And by all means, I would love to see you prove any sort of "ignorance" on my part in this issue. My positions are thoroughly researched and unassailable. I have seen lots of ignorance from the pro choice side however. Lack of knowledge of the law, lack of knowledge of the constitution, lack of knowledge of basic developmental biology etc, etc.

No. Once again, I never said that. As I've mentioned before I've yet to formulate an opinion on abortion; I'm just jumping in to point things out here and there. Look back through the thread and you'll find that I've pissed off the pro-choicers about as much as I've pissed off you.

And yet, you argue for a woman's right to kill the child.

There are precious few "simple problems," especially in regards to social/legal issues. Tell me, pale - do you suppose this problem would be so simple to you if you yourself were a woman?

As I have pointed out to mare, life is very simple if one is honest. This is a very simple cut and dried issue. Unborns are human beings. Human beings have a right to live, and all rights are secondary to the right to live. The complication comes about when one tries to justify killing a certain class of human beings while maintaing the rights of the rest. It gets very sticky, very quickly and requires a great deal of lies, misrepresentation, and slander to muddy the water enough to make it "seem" like a complicated problem.

Yes. This would be the same simple problem if I were a woman. I am one who accepts the responsibility for my actions and would never expect another human being to die in order to relieve me of my responsibility or bad memories.

 

[palerider]

Most people don't care about the lives of others or we would have health care for everyone and no one would be homeless and we would not have homeless children and... the list could go on and on.

First, people are responsible for themselves mare. Caring about people doesn't mean paying their way in the world. My parents demonstrated that they cared for me by teaching me to make it on my own. Making people dependent on you for their daily bread is not caring mare, it is enslavement.

I respect your position, but I think that Pale is a vast hypocrite since all he's doing is trying to stick women with all the blame and all the punishment. He admits that he hasn't adopted any unwanted babies and he hasn't said a word about all the homeless children already living in this country. Unlike yourself he has no credibility, he has chosen to attack women for killing fetuses because HE has decided that they are innocent--it's easy for him because it costs him nothing.

More lies mare. Haven't I said that I am perfectly fine with forcing men to pay for their children? And I have never said that I have not adopted a child, I said that whether I have or not is irrelavent to the discussion. And tell me mare, since I have just "decided" that unborns are innocent, tell me what crimes they are guilty of that their lives should be forfiet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As I have pointed out to mare, life is very simple if one is honest. This is a very simple cut and dried issue. Unborns are human beings. Human beings have a right to live, and all rights are secondary to the right to live. The complication comes about when one tries to justify killing a certain class of human beings while maintaing the rights of the rest. It gets very sticky, very quickly and requires a great deal of lies, misrepresentation, and slander to muddy the water enough to make it "seem" like a complicated problem.

Life is simple for simple people. Our friend Pale here decides who is innocent and who is guilty on the basis of HIS PERSONAL OPINION and uses that judgment to decide who can live and who can be tortured to death. Fetuses are innocent so anything else is irrelevant, people Pale judges as maybe having valuable information can be tortured to death and anything else is irrelevant. Simple people see simple answers.

Yes. This would be the same simple problem if I were a woman. I am one who accepts the responsibility for my actions and would never expect another human being to die in order to relieve me of my responsibility or bad memories.

Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it, you have less than no credibility since you have no cost to pay. An interesting movie that bears at least obliquely on this is THE MAGDALENE SISTERS. Pale would have us go back to that kind of treatement of women.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Simple people post things under the wrong author's name, Pale.

First, people are responsible for themselves mare. Caring about people doesn't mean paying their way in the world. My parents demonstrated that they cared for me by teaching me to make it on my own. Making people dependent on you for their daily bread is not caring mare, it is enslavement.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. You've never been a single mother trying to raise children in our culture, you have no idea what you are talking about. You and Ronald Reagan, at least HE had the excuse of Alzheimer's.

More lies mare. Haven't I said that I am perfectly fine with forcing men to pay for their children? And I have never said that I have not adopted a child, I said that whether I have or not is irrelavent to the discussion. And tell me mare, since I have just "decided" that unborns are innocent, tell me what crimes they are guilty of that their lives should be forfiet.

Sometimes the very existence of a life causes repercussions that make it desirable to terminate that life. Rabid dogs have committed no crime, but we kill them because of their potential for causing damage. Bringing millions of unwanted babies into a world populated by people who believe in the philosophy YOU wrote in your first paragraph above is pretty cruel and condemns many of them to misery and death. Personally, I'd rather see clumps of cells killed than babies and young children killed through neglect and abuse in a society that refuses to recognize any responsibility to its most vulnerable citizens. You really make my case for me in your first paragraph, force a woman to bear a child of rape through law and deny any responsibility for your part in passing that law. It's really clear how much you care about the babies AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING. Dodging the question of how many of these unfortunates you have adopted simply accentuates your misogynist hypocrisy. Pretty simple, Pale, pretty simple.

 

[vyo476]

More emotionalism. There are people who are psychologically scarred and carry life long fears because a dog barked at them. Psychological scars, however, are not a valid reason to kill another human being.

And now you liken rape to being barked at by a dog. Will wonders cease?

I understand perfectly what both a bigot and a misogynist is and as much as you would like to twist the definitions, you can't hang them on me. It is interesting that you have now resorted to personal attacks in lieu of actually arguing my points as well. To me, that smells like victory.

Actually, calling you a misogynist in the first place was the "personal attack." This was just a rhetorical follow-up.

And by all means, I would love to see you prove any sort of "ignorance" on my part in this issue. My positions are thoroughly researched and unassailable. I have seen lots of ignorance from the pro choice side however. Lack of knowledge of the law, lack of knowledge of the constitution, lack of knowledge of basic developmental biology etc, etc.

Okay. You have likened the trauma suffered by rape victims to that suffered by people who have been barked at by dogs.

Here's a site that deals with the traumas suffered by rape victims: http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/effectsofrape.html

I would challenge you to show how victims of dog barking experience similarly severe psychological trauma.

And yet, you argue for a woman's right to kill the child.

If you were paying attention, you would know that I do not.

I began this dialog with you to point out that you had grossly understated the trauma of rape. This has nothing to do with whether or not I believe abortion should be allowed. I am still attempting to formulate an opinion on whether or not abortion should be allowed. If the pro-life side is incapable of understanding the extreme trauma of rape - well, that won't be the one single deciding factor in which way I choose, but it is a factor nonetheless.

Yes. This would be the same simple problem if I were a woman. I am one who accepts the responsibility for my actions and would never expect another human being to die in order to relieve me of my responsibility or bad memories.

And would you accept "responsibility" for being raped?

 

[palerider]

Our friend Pale here decides who is innocent and who is guilty on the basis of HIS PERSONAL OPINION and uses that judgment to decide who can live and who can be tortured to death.

You keep saying that. I have asked you to demonstrate any guilt at all on the part of unborns and to date, you have not even tried. I have not "decided" that they are innocent, they are. Unless, of course, you are able to make a case for some guilt.

 

[palerider]

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. You've never been a single mother trying to raise children in our culture, you have no idea what you are talking about. You and Ronald Reagan, at least HE had the excuse of Alzheimer's.

How did she come to be a single mother mare? Could it be through her own bad decisions? Most people are where they are exactly because of their own good, or bad decisions. You can not justify killing one human being because of the bad decisions of another.

Sometimes the very existence of a life causes repercussions that make it desirable to terminate that life.

That has to be the most hypocritical thing you have ever said to me mare. You rail at me claiming that I have "decided" that unborns are innocent and then you simply state that the world would be better off if "some" human beings are killed? Some human beings who have done nothing to deserve to die.

Rabid dogs have committed no crime, but we kill them because of their potential for causing damage.

So you are comparing unborns to rabid dogs? That is your justification for killing them?

Bringing millions of unwanted babies into a world populated by people who believe in the philosophy YOU wrote in your first paragraph above is pretty cruel and condemns many of them to misery and death. Personally, I'd rather see clumps of cells killed than babies and young children killed through neglect and abuse in a society that refuses to recognize any responsibility to its most vulnerable citizens. You really make my case for me in your first paragraph, force a woman to bear a child of rape through law and deny any responsibility for your part in passing that law. It's really clear how much you care about the babies AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING. Dodging the question of how many of these unfortunates you have adopted simply accentuates your misogynist hypocrisy. Pretty simple, Pale, pretty simple.

Do you know what percentage of the population has the intellectual wattage to even grasp the problems we face today mare, much less begin to concieve of answers? What percentage of the population do you believe has the sort of mind that coud work out cold fusion? How about the intricacies of the middle east situation? How about a cheap way to split hydrogen atoms from water? Or solar cells that are orders of magnitude more efficent than the ones we have today?

CLearly, your mind doesn't run in such circles. You see them as burdens, unwanted people, because that is the only way your anger lets you see them. I see them as human beings who have exactly one shot at life and unless they have committed some crime, they have a right to that life. Precious few minds come along that are capable of working out any of the things I mentioned as evidenced by the fact that no one has worked them out yet. We are killing 1 out of every 4 in this country mare, and the numbers are even higher in other countries and genius doesn't come from a particular country or a particular side of the tracks.

The mind capable of figuring out cold fusion, or cheap hydrogen may have already been tossed into a dumpster.