Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

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

Is the child guilty of a crime that it's life should be forfiet? Either you believe you should be able to kill people who remind you of bad memories or you don't. Which is it?

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

So long as you understand that you are no longer debating. When you are in a position where the best you can do is call names, you have lost the discussion.

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

So the psychological trauma and resulting fear that some people have of dogs is less serious than the psychological trauma of rape. Some people are unable to even leave their homes because of a fear of dogs. Psychological trauma is psychological trauma and if one is incapacitated by it, it doesn't matter what the source of said trauma is. If you believe that one source of the trauma (if the trauma exists) is inherently more important than another source of trauma, the ignorance is on your part, not mine.

Of course that gets away from the actual issue. Should you be allowed to kill someone who reminds you of a trauma inflicted upon you by someone else entirely? If not, why even go down that path?

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

Google severe psychological trauma. All manner of things can cause trauma depending upon where the traumatized person's mind is. Once the damage is done, one way of causing it is no worse than another way.

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

Research cynophobia. Or any irrational fear for that matter. People who have such fears are scarred by events that seem much less traumatic (to us) than rape, but they are very often debilitated to the point that they can not even leave their homes. Psychological damage is psychological damage.

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. .

I have not underestimated any sort of trauma. Severe trauma is severe trauma and what caused it is not particularly important. A woman traumatized by rape who is able to go to work is not as traumatized as someone who was so traumatized by a barking dog that they can not even leave their home. Of course, I realize that some rape victims are also not able to leave their homes, but are they "more" traumatized than other people who are also unable to leave their homes because of other fears?

And would you accept "responsibility" for being raped?

That would depend entirely upon the situation in which I got raped. No situation would entirely excuse the man, but it is possible to find yourself responsible for getting into bad situations.

In any event, killing a child would not relieve me of the trauma perpetrated upon me by the man, it would just make me guilty of an even more henious act. Rape is a terrible crime but in my view, rape isn't as bad as killing a child. Feel free to explain, if you like, how any crime is worse than deliberately killing a child.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

The hypocrisy in what you say lies in the fact that the child has done nothing wrong and yet you rail at having to do anything to help support or nurture the very lives that YOU have demanded be brought into this world because they are innocent.

How is it that you can separate the lives of the Mother and child so well and decide that only the fetus has rights until it's born and then blame the child for the mistakes of the Mother and claim that you have no responsibility to help support and nurture the innocent child? This is the crux of the matter for me, we don't have the systems and resources dedicated and in place to deal with millions of new lives that no one (especially YOU, Pale) wants to have to support or nurture.

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.

You are TOOOOO funny sometimes, Pale! YOU think SOME people should die, in fact you advocate torturing them into the next world. And I'm the hypocrite? Harm none also means trying to reduce the suffering, birthing millions of unwanted children to live lives of neglect is cruel.

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

I chuckled while writing that analogy because I thought you'd really like trying to bash me with it. You tend to be a trifle predictable. Your comments are an attempt to twist what I said, and you know it. We are discussing "innocence" not hydrophobia. Try again.

More later, work calls.

 

[palerider]

The hypocrisy in what you say lies in the fact that the child has done nothing wrong and yet you rail at having to do anything to help support or nurture the very lives that YOU have demanded be brought into this world because they are innocent. [/quote]

There is no hypocricy in my postion mare. And exactly when did I ever rail at having to do anything to support the children who are aborted. More lies mare. In this case, you just made it up from whole cloth.

How is it that you can separate the lives of the Mother and child so well and decide that only the fetus has rights until it's born and then blame the child for the mistakes of the Mother and claim that you have no responsibility to help support and nurture the innocent child?

First, it is easy to separate them because they are two separate lives.

And I have never said that only the child has rights. More lies on your part mare. Maybe a reading comprehension problem or maybe a deliberate mischaracterization, either way, a fabrication.

And again, I have never suggested that no one but the mother bears any responsibility for the child's upbringing. Why is it that you are unable to be honest about anything mare?

This is the crux of the matter for me, we don't have the systems and resources dedicated and in place to deal with millions of new lives that no one (especially YOU, Pale) wants to have to support or nurture.

So your answer is to kill them? Good answer mare. Stalin, lenin, pol pot, mao et. al. would be proud of you.

You are TOOOOO funny sometimes, Pale! YOU think SOME people should die, in fact you advocate torturing them into the next world. And I'm the hypocrite? Harm none also means trying to reduce the suffering, birthing millions of unwanted children to live lives of neglect is cruel.

Bring forward any statement that I have made that suggests that I would torture people to death mare. You are a very dishonest woman. Of what use would a source of information be if that source were tortured to death?

And yes, you are a blatant hypocrite. Kindness by killing? Sounds positively sociopathic to me mare. Do you also advocate the same sort of "kindness" to people who are already living lives of misery and neglect or are you, once again, being a blatant hypocrite by suggesting such "kindness" to only a very specific group?

I chuckled while writing that analogy because I thought you'd really like trying to bash me with it. You tend to be a trifle predictable. Your comments are an attempt to twist what I said, and you know it. We are discussing "innocence" not hydrophobia. Try again.

More later, work calls.

Right.

Is that how you try and extricate yourself when you attempt to compare killing children to killing rabid dogs ? Poor attempt.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's all lies, right Pale, so why do you post back to me? You've been pretty clear that it was the woman who got herself pregnant and you don't feel that you should have to help support her children. So what did the child do that it doesn't deserve the support and nurturing of the society that required it to be birthed?

They are two separate lives, but you have constantly maintained that the fetal life takes precedence over all other considerations.

You have also made it very clear that you don't think society bears any responsibility to the fetus once it is born. You have refused to discuss any of the preparations that I and others have mentioned as a way to cope with a (quote by Pale: "We are killing 1 out of every 4 in this country...") 25% increase in birth rate when our social services are overwhelmed right now.

Killing clumps of cells is better than killing babies born into a world that doesn't want to care for them. Our culture has not made any committment to caring for the milllions of new unwanted babies YOU would force women to bear through your ban on abortion and birth contol.

Your silly emotional outburst about Pol Pot, et al was a pretty standard hysterical response from you. It's good that you do it so that people can see the emotional instability that makes you press incessantly for a solution to a problem that will make the problem worse, not better.


You were very clear on the Torture thread about how you would treat a person to get information out of them. Death is the only rational end to torture isn't it? If they continue to deny any of the knowledge you think they have, then you have to keep hurting them more and more till they tell you what you want to hear or until they die. But even if they tell you what you want to hear, you'll still need to hurt them more to make sure that they aren't JUST telling you what you want to hear, in the end you can do nothing but torture them to death.

Death CAN be a kindness, I would far rather be killed than to be turned over to a monster such as yourself to be tortured hideously in an attempt to make me give you information that I might very well not even have, but you would have to torture me to death just to make sure. Better by far to be killed outright.

If you intend to condemn a baby to a life without the nurture or support of a culture that doesn't want them at all, then yes, I think it's far better to kill them as a clump of cells than as a fully-formed child left to die of neglect.

We were discussing "innocence" and you were demanding to know what the baby had done to deserve death, what does a sick animal do to deserve death? If no one wants to care for the baby or the animal then it's very possible that the kindest thing to do is put it to death. You don't want to care for the babies that you DEMAND women bear--even in cases of rape--so you have no right to demand that others care for them. If others decide to kill their babies rather than care for them it's tragic, but if no one else wants to care for them either, then it becomes inevitable.

Your scientific detachment sags down around this issue, Pale, you want to force YOUR vision of right and wrong onto others and make them live their lives according to your dictates. The fact that I actually agree with you about the tragedy of abortions doesn't blind me to the fact that by legislating morality for others you will exacerbate the problem rather than ameliorate it. It never has worked and it never will, until our culture wakes up and realizes that it has a social contract and that it needs to support and nurture the new generations, then nothing will stop the killing.

Your argument about genius is fallacious, statistically speaking, there is a far greater likelihood that crazy, mentally deficient, sociopathic, psychopathic, and totally normal people who will be aborted than geniuses. If you really are the scientist that you claim to be, then you should realize how silly this argument is. It's an emotional response.

 

[palerider]

It's all lies, right Pale, so why do you post back to me? You've been pretty clear that it was the woman who got herself pregnant and you don't feel that you should have to help support her children. So what did the child do that it doesn't deserve the support and nurturing of the society that required it to be birthed?

Because I feel an obligation to point out when my arguments have been mischaracterized mare. You spend very little effort actually arguing points mare, but a great deal of time misquoting what I have said and simply fabricating.

They are two separate lives, but you have constantly maintained that the fetal life takes precedence over all other considerations.

Again, a mischaracterization. I said that all rights are secondary to the right to live. You are a blatant hypocrit in that you don't apply your life or death decision making ability across the board. You don't suggest that we kill off people who are already living unhappy lives of neglect and abuse. Instead, you suggest that it would be better to kill off those who "MIGHT" live unhappy lives.

You have also made it very clear that you don't think society bears any responsibility to the fetus once it is born. You have refused to discuss any of the preparations that I and others have mentioned as a way to cope with a (quote by Pale: "We are killing 1 out of every 4 in this country...") 25% increase in birth rate when our social services are overwhelmed right now.

Maybe clear to you mare. It is obvious that you don't comprehend anything that is said to you. You read the words and apply whatever meaning to them you choose. And exactly what makes you believe that the rate of unwanted pregnancy would remain the same if abortion were no longer an option. Do you believe that women are so stupid?

Killing clumps of cells is better than killing babies born into a world that doesn't want to care for them. Our culture has not made any committment to caring for the milllions of new unwanted babies YOU would force women to bear through your ban on abortion and birth contol.

Not clumps of cells mare, human beings. You may actually believe that lie, but don't try and tell it to me. And I have never suggested a ban on birth control, only a ban on abortificients. Why are you so dishonest?

Your silly emotional outburst about Pol Pot, et al was a pretty standard hysterical response from you. It's good that you do it so that people can see the emotional instability that makes you press incessantly for a solution to a problem that will make the problem worse, not better.

It wasn't emotional mare. Sadly it was just an accurate observation.

You were very clear on the Torture thread about how you would treat a person to get information out of them. Death is the only rational end to torture isn't it? If they continue to deny any of the knowledge you think they have, then you have to keep hurting them more and more till they tell you what you want to hear or until they die. But even if they tell you what you want to hear, you'll still need to hurt them more to make sure that they aren't JUST telling you what you want to hear, in the end you can do nothing but torture them to death.

Perhaps in your mind death is the rational end to torture. You just make up whatever you don't know. Physical pain isn't even the rational result of torture mare, much less death.

Death CAN be a kindness, I would far rather be killed than to be turned over to a monster such as yourself to be tortured hideously in an attempt to make me give you information that I might very well not even have, but you would have to torture me to death just to make sure. Better by far to be killed outright.

So answer my question. Would you suggest killing those who we know for a fact are living lives of sadness, neglect and abuse? Would you go about showing the homeless and abused your particular brand of "kindness"?

And now you are suggesting that all of the children who aren't aborted will be rounded up and tortured?

If you intend to condemn a baby to a life without the nurture or support of a culture that doesn't want them at all, then yes, I think it's far better to kill them as a clump of cells than as a fully-formed child left to die of neglect.p/quote]

And what exactly makes you think that all, or even a large percentage of aborted children will grow up to be abused and neglected? Such wasn't the case before abortion became legal.

We were discussing "innocence" and you were demanding to know what the baby had done to deserve death, what does a sick animal do to deserve death? If no one wants to care for the baby or the animal then it's very possible that the kindest thing to do is put it to death. You don't want to care for the babies that you DEMAND women bear--even in cases of rape--so you have no right to demand that others care for them. If others decide to kill their babies rather than care for them it's tragic, but if no one else wants to care for them either, then it becomes inevitable.

Animals have no right to live mare. The law is what it is whether you like it or not.

And again, are you suggesting that we find out which children in the foster programs, and orphans etc who are unhappy and simply kill them out of kindness?

And enough already with the rape senario. Less than .01% of rapes result in pregnancy. The number isn't large enough to even warrant discussion. It is no more than an emotional ploy to direct attention away from the FACT that 98% of all abortions are for reasons that are no more than convenience.

Your scientific detachment sags down around this issue, Pale, you want to force YOUR vision of right and wrong onto others and make them live their lives according to your dictates. The fact that I actually agree with you about the tragedy of abortions doesn't blind me to the fact that by legislating morality for others you will exacerbate the problem rather than ameliorate it. It never has worked and it never will, until our culture wakes up and realizes that it has a social contract and that it needs to support and nurture the new generations, then nothing will stop the killing.

All law forces someone's version of right and wrong on all of us and makes us live our lives according to their dictates. Law preventing abortion is no more legislating morality than law against murder, assault or pedophilia. And of course it has worked mare. Before roe, there were not a million children a year being murdered by their mothers. And before you tell the lie of the back alley and coathanger again, we have already been there. The myth of the back alley abortion is a lie and has been admitted by the man who made it up.

Your argument about genius is fallacious, statistically speaking, there is a far greater likelihood that crazy, mentally deficient, sociopathic, psychopathic, and totally normal people who will be aborted than geniuses. If you really are the scientist that you claim to be, then you should realize how silly this argument is. It's an emotional response.

Sorry mare, it isn't. As I said, the number of truely brilliant minds is very small and if you are killing 1 in 4, then there is a 1 in 4 chance of their being killed along with the general population. There is no way around it mare since we can't test for genius in utero.

I would be interested to know mare, if we could test for genius and could know that a child will have an IQ over 160, would you support killing that child if its mother didn't want it knowing that it would have the sort of mind that really could create answers to the big problems we face?

And would you support a woman killing a child because she could know that it would likely be homosexual, or short, or unattractive? Since you support a woman's right to kill her child for any or no reason, would you also support her "right" to kill it for very specific reasons?

 

[Coyote]

I think it's disingenious to compare the trauma of being raped to the trauma of being barked at by dogs. As a matter of fact I think that's a pretty horrible comparison.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The fact that you spend a lot of time bleating like a sheep about everything I say being a lie... is that another lie?

You have an obligation? Give me a break, you are on this site to express your emotional orgasm around the tragedy of abortion. I'd agree with you if you weren't an insane extremist who wants to ban birth control, equates rape with being barked at by dogs, and denies everyone else's right to own and operate their bodies, and advocates torturing people. (Is that a lie too, did someone else named Pale write all those posts on the Torture thread?)

"all rights are secondary" = "the fetal life takes precedence" It seems to me that the two statements say basically the same thing. What is mischaracterized?

You don't suggest that we kill off people who are already living unhappy lives of neglect and abuse. Instead, you suggest that it would be better to kill off those who "MIGHT" live unhappy lives.

Talk about a mischaracterization!

And exactly what makes you believe that the rate of unwanted pregnancy would remain the same if abortion were no longer an option. Do you believe that women are so stupid?

And exactly what makes you think that passing a law will instantly make people behave differently? Will men stop raping women? Are you that stupid?

Not clumps of cells mare, human beings. You may actually believe that lie, but don't try and tell it to me. And I have never suggested a ban on birth control, only a ban on abortificients. Why are you so dishonest?

It's an issue of definition, a clump of cells is a potential human and not nearly the same thing as a birthed baby. If you can't tell the difference then you are pretty dim. All the birth control products on the market now are considered abortifacients according to the infallible Pale and you want all of them to be illegal. Why are you so dishonest?

It wasn't emotional mare. Sadly it was just an accurate observation.

You're right, it's not just emotional, it's hysterical. If your opinion is that it's accurate then you are pretty dim.

Physical pain isn't even the rational result of torture mare, much less death.

I'm liking this Pale, anyone with more than 2 brain cells firing is going to see how twisted you view of things is.

And now you are suggesting that all of the children who aren't aborted will be rounded up and tortured?

I'm liking this Pale, anyone with more than 2 brain cells firing is going to see how twisted you view of things is.

And again, are you suggesting that we find out which children in the foster programs, and orphans etc who are unhappy and simply kill them out of kindness?

I'm liking this Pale, anyone with more than 2 brain cells firing is going to see how twisted you view of things is.

And what exactly makes you think that all, or even a large percentage of aborted children will grow up to be abused and neglected?

Are you dim? The very people who are supposed to be caring for these babies have decided to kill them, do you really believe that you passing a draconian law will make these people suddenly love the babies that they are willing to kill? You can't legislate morality, Pale, no matter how much you might like to do so. Get a grip! Look at reality, you are demanding a million new lives be cherished by a culture that has no respect for these lives, do you think a silly law will make anyone contribute more money to help support and nurture these babies? How much more will you give?

Animals have no right to live mare. The law is what it is whether you like it or not.

Fetuses have no right to life, Pale. The law is what it is whether you like it or not. We both think the law is wrong, you are apparently totally anthropocentric and thus more than happy to condemn all other life to the positon of having "no rights", but I am not. You are a puzzle, fetal life is sacred but everybody else is living on borrowed time with you and all animals are condemned out of hand. Pretty self-serving.

And enough already with the rape senario. Less than .01% of rapes result in pregnancy. The number isn't large enough to even warrant discussion. It is no more than an emotional ploy to direct attention away from the FACT that 98% of all abortions are for reasons that are no more than convenience.

Your extremism is what is the issue here, not how many poor women are victimized by violent men. Your stand on rape and on the use of birth control moves you from the field of rational discussion into the fuzzy fringe of insanity. Your contention that the number of rapes that result in pregnancy is not large enough to warrant discussion shows your misogynist attitude perfectly. All the women who have to struggle with this issue are not worth discussing? Nice, Pale, I've met dung beetles with more compassion. Do you realize how you come across? With your callous dismissal of all women's concerns and your casual acceptance of torture, and your extremist attitude towards birth control, you come across as being meaner than an acre of snakes.

All law forces someone's version of right and wrong on all of us and makes us live our lives according to their dictates. Law preventing abortion is no more legislating morality than law against murder, assault or pedophilia. And of course it has worked mare. Before roe, there were not a million children a year being murdered by their mothers. And before you tell the lie of the back alley and coathanger again, we have already been there. The myth of the back alley abortion is a lie and has been admitted by the man who made it up.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Pale. Your denial of women's reality shows your ignorance. You don't know, you don't care, and that makes you look like a misogynist. I think you are a nut-ball, you call me a liar, not because I'm saying something that's not true, but because you want to deny anyone else's truth.

Sorry mare, it isn't. As I said, the number of truely brilliant minds is very small and if you are killing 1 in 4, then there is a 1 in 4 chance of their being killed along with the general population. There is no way around it mare since we can't test for genius in utero.

I would be interested to know mare, if we could test for genius and could know that a child will have an IQ over 160, would you support killing that child if its mother didn't want it knowing that it would have the sort of mind that really could create answers to the big problems we face?

I'm curious why you think it should matter to me when it doesn't matter to you? You don't think that you should have to help support or nurture unwanted babies, would you help with one if you knew it had an IQ of 160? Do you realize how this argument makes you sound? You aren't arguing for the life of the fetus because it has intrinsic value, no, you are arguing that it might be smart enough to be valuable to us as a culture--recognizing the fetus' utilitarian value. This is the same argument that you use to justify torture: it might be useful to us and therefore it's okay. That's a USER philosophy and completely at odds with your previous self-righteous diatribes about the value of life.

And would you support a woman killing a child because she could know that it would likely be homosexual, or short, or unattractive? Since you support a woman's right to kill her child for any or no reason, would you also support her "right" to kill it for very specific reasons?

I reluctantly support a woman's right to kill her fetus before it reaches viability if no one wants to care for the child. We know YOU aren't going to care for an unwanted child, nor do you feel like you should contribute to the support or nurturance of an unwanted child. If she doesn't want to care for it and you don't want to, then yes, sad to say I think it's better to kill clumps of cells in utero before they are fully developed human beings and brought into a culture that doesn't value them. I think we should care for the people who are viable human beings right now before we take on a million more unwanted souls.

What you seem totally unwilling to acknowledge is that NO ONE wants these babies--AND THAT INCLUDES YOU--and no one wants to contribute to their care and up-keep--INCLUDING YOU. If their own mother doesn't want them, then they are better off NOT BEING BORN at all. Sad? Of course, but reality is often sad. If YOU are not willing to sacrifice your time, money, and life to care for and nurture unwanted babies, then your calls for laws to ban abortion and birth contol are just another hypocritical attempt to force OTHER people to do what YOU think is right.

 

[vyo476]

I think it's disingenious to compare the trauma of being raped to the trauma of being barked at by dogs. As a matter of fact I think that's a pretty horrible comparison.

Thank you, Coyote.

After all, someone who is deeply traumatized by being barked at by a dog is a victim of an irrational fear (a phobia). Would you say that rape victims are also succumbing to irrational fear when they are traumatized by what happened to them?

 

[palerider]

I think it's disingenious to compare the trauma of being raped to the trauma of being barked at by dogs. As a matter of fact I think that's a pretty horrible comparison.

Is it? Is a person is so traumatized by being barked at by a dog that they are no longer able to even leave their home less traumatized than a woman who has been raped and can? Explain.

 

[palerider]

The fact that you spend a lot of time bleating like a sheep about everything I say being a lie... is that another lie?

I don't lie mare.

You have an obligation? Give me a break, you are on this site to express your emotional orgasm around the tragedy of abortion. I'd agree with you if you weren't an insane extremist who wants to ban birth control, equates rape with being barked at by dogs, and denies everyone else's right to own and operate their bodies, and advocates torturing people. (Is that a lie too, did someone else named Pale write all those posts on the Torture thread?)

Yes I do. And one of us is certainly emotional mare, but alas, it isn't me. And once more, you lie. I never equated rape to being barked at by dogs, I, very correctly, pointed out that trauma is trauma and its source isn't as important as how profound it is. If you believe that you can prove me wrong, feel free to do so. I am confident, however, that you will be as completely unable in this case as you are in the case of my arguments against abortion.

And again, it isn't the woman's body that I am concerned with. It isn't the woman who is being torn limb from limb. And AGAIN, all law restricts what we may do so law preventing abortion does not belong in a category to itself.

And I never said that I do not advocate torture under a very limited set of circumstances. Unlike you who began this discussion claiming that you believed that abortion was indeed murder and did not support it.

"all rights are secondary" = "the fetal life takes precedence" It seems to me that the two statements say basically the same thing. What is mischaracterized?

All of my rights are secondary to your right to live mare. All of your rights are secondary to my right to live. In fact, all of our combined rights are secondary to anyone else's right to live. Since you are unable to prove that legal theory wrong in any way, and completely unable to prove that unborns are something other than human beings, and completely unable to prove that they are not persons, all of our rights are secondary to their right to live as well. You miscaracterize by suggesting that I am saying that all rights are secondary to "fetal life" as if fetal life were something other than a human being with the same right to live as you.

And exactly what makes you think that passing a law will instantly make people behave differently? Will men stop raping women? Are you that stupid?

It always does mare. Of course, there are some who will disregard the law as is the case with any law, but the vast majority obey the law. If you care to prove me wrong, show me a law that the majority of people disregard.

And your rape argument is a loser mare. Less than .01 % of all abortions are due to rape.

It's an issue of definition, a clump of cells is a potential human and not nearly the same thing as a birthed baby. If you can't tell the difference then you are pretty dim. All the birth control products on the market now are considered abortifacients according to the infallible Pale and you want all of them to be illegal. Why are you so dishonest?

Sorry mare, you are patently wrong. They are human beings. I have challenged you repeatedly to provide some credible evidence that suggests that unborns aren't human beings and you know as well as I that you aren't going to be able to provide it. Your inability to wrap your mind around the fact that an unborn at fertilization + 1 second is as human as you is your failing, not the child's.

And once again, you lie mare. Contraceptives are not abortificents. Your knowledge is so limited so as to cripple you in this discussion.

You're right, it's not just emotional, it's hysterical. If your opinion is that it's accurate then you are pretty dim.

Again, attacking when you are unable to effectively argue against my points. Typical.

I'm liking this Pale, anyone with more than 2 brain cells firing is going to see how twisted you view of things is.

I am pointing out the error of your arguments mare. You are the one who claimed that killing children who might not live happy lives is a mercy. That is your twisted view mare. I am the one who argues that all human beings have a right to live.

I'm liking this Pale, anyone with more than 2 brain cells firing is going to see how twisted you view of things is.

Funny mare. You make a point and when I repeat it back to you, you claim that I am twisted?

Are you dim? The very people who are supposed to be caring for these babies have decided to kill them, do you really believe that you passing a draconian law will make these people suddenly love the babies that they are willing to kill? You can't legislate morality, Pale, no matter how much you might like to do so. Get a grip! Look at reality, you are demanding a million new lives be cherished by a culture that has no respect for these lives, do you think a silly law will make anyone contribute more money to help support and nurture these babies? How much more will you give?

I am not demanding anything mare except that human beings have a right to live. The rest is your hysterical handwringing.

Fetuses have no right to life, Pale. The law is what it is whether you like it or not. We both think the law is wrong, you are apparently totally anthropocentric and thus more than happy to condemn all other life to the positon of having "no rights", but I am not. You are a puzzle, fetal life is sacred but everybody else is living on borrowed time with you and all animals are condemned out of hand. Pretty self-serving.

Are you arguing that blacks had no right to freedom regardless of what the law said back during those days? Are you arguing that they were not indeed human beings who had as much right to be free as any white person? If you are arguing that the law makes things right, then you will surely lose that one as badly as you are losing the rest. The courts routinely reverse themselves clearly indicating that just because they say a thing does not make that thing either true or right.

And what are you talking about when you "claim" that I have said that fetal life is sacred while everyone else is living on borrowed time?

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Your extremism is what is the issue here, not how many poor women are victimized by violent men. Your stand on rape and on the use of birth control moves you from the field of rational discussion into the fuzzy fringe of insanity. Your contention that the number of rapes that result in pregnancy is not large enough to warrant discussion shows your misogynist attitude perfectly. All the women who have to struggle with this issue are not worth discussing? Nice, Pale, I've met dung beetles with more compassion. Do you realize how you come across? With your callous dismissal of all women's concerns and your casual acceptance of torture, and your extremist attitude towards birth control, you come across as being meaner than an acre of snakes.

What extremeism mare. It is you who is screaming hysterically. ONCE AGAIN, my position is:

1. Unborns are human beings.

2. Human beings have a right to live.

3. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Which part of that is extremism mare? And which part can you prove wrong?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Pale. Your denial of women's reality shows your ignorance. You don't know, you don't care, and that makes you look like a misogynist. I think you are a nut-ball, you call me a liar, not because I'm saying something that's not true, but because you want to deny anyone else's truth.

Your denial that unborns are as human as you and have exactly the same right to live as you shows your more profound ignorance mare. You are fabricating reasons to kill children.

And I point out that you lie when you lie mare.

I'm curious why you think it should matter to me when it doesn't matter to you? You don't think that you should have to help support or nurture unwanted babies, would you help with one if you knew it had an IQ of 160? Do you realize how this argument makes you sound? You aren't arguing for the life of the fetus because it has intrinsic value, no, you are arguing that it might be smart enough to be valuable to us as a culture--recognizing the fetus' utilitarian value. This is the same argument that you use to justify torture: it might be useful to us and therefore it's okay. That's a USER philosophy and completely at odds with your previous self-righteous diatribes about the value of life.

I didn't think you would be able to answer mare and I fully expected you to fabricate some LIE about it. I have never argued that one human being's life is more valuable than another's mare, that is your position.

I reluctantly support a woman's right to kill her fetus before it reaches viability if no one wants to care for the child. We know YOU aren't going to care for an unwanted child, nor do you feel like you should contribute to the support or nurturance of an unwanted child. If she doesn't want to care for it and you don't want to, then yes, sad to say I think it's better to kill clumps of cells in utero before they are fully developed human beings and brought into a culture that doesn't value them. I think we should care for the people who are viable human beings right now before we take on a million more unwanted souls.

You even lie to yourself mare. You support a woman's right to kill a "fetus" because no one will care for the "child" as if they were two different things. The fetus is a child mare. You support a woman's right to kill her child and then you fabricate all of these "reasons" that you support that right. The fact, however, mare is that:

Unborns are human beings.

Human beings have a right to live.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

What you seem totally unwilling to acknowledge is that NO ONE wants these babies--AND THAT INCLUDES YOU--and no one wants to contribute to their care and up-keep--INCLUDING YOU. If their own mother doesn't want them, then they are better off NOT BEING BORN at all. Sad? Of course, but reality is often sad. If YOU are not willing to sacrifice your time, money, and life to care for and nurture unwanted babies, then your calls for laws to ban abortion and birth contol are just another hypocritical attempt to force OTHER people to do what YOU think is right.

Mare, there are waiting lists years long for infants. You keep claiming that no one wants them but the facts prove you wrong. And in a very large percentage of situations, women who carry pregnancies to term with the intention of giving up the child, find that they are unable to do so when the time comes proving also that not all, or even a large percentage of the children who would have been aborted will be unwanted and unloved. You make far to many assumptions to have a rational argument mare. The facts are all against you.

 

[palerider]

Thank you, Coyote.

After all, someone who is deeply traumatized by being barked at by a dog is a victim of an irrational fear (a phobia). Would you say that rape victims are also succumbing to irrational fear when they are traumatized by what happened to them?

Any event that leaves a person unable to function has created an irrational fear. If a woman who is raped begins to believe that all men are rapists and can no longer carry on her daily business is expressing a phobia. Trauma is trauma and again, I challenge you to prove that the source of the trauma is in any way more important than the depth of the trauma itself.

And once again, is any of this a justifaction to kill?

 

[top gun]

Is it? Is a person is so traumatized by being barked at by a dog that they are no longer able to even leave their home less traumatized than a woman who has been raped and can? Explain.

OMG...... you're serious. You are really that out of touch with things like women and rape trauma. This one comparison should be enough for everyone to discredit your understanding of anything woman related.

That is one of the most foolish and disrespectful statements in regard to a woman's feelings I have ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[palerider]

OMG...... you're serious. You are really that out of touch with things like women and rape trauma. This one comparison should be enough for everyone to discredit your understanding of anything woman related.

That is one of the most foolish and disrespectful statements in regard to a woman's feelings I have ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Rather than wringing your hands and babbling, answer the question. I will ask it again for your benefit.

Is the source of trauma more important than how profound the trauma is?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I once had an argument/discussion with a white supremacist who was a lot like Pale. He had his argument down pat and he wouldn't deviate an inch from his position, he wouldn't even acknowledge that there WAS a position besides his own. Much like Pale, he had a set of "proofs" that black people were not human and nothing would shift him from that perspective. Just like Pale, he would ignore or misconstrue any fact or viewpoint that was not in line with his own. He was pretty hateful and compassionless towards those whom he saw as opposing his position too. I disagree with Pale, I think his arguments are carefully crafted but narrow and incomplete. I don't think I will be able to change his mind and I know that he isn't going to change mine with the narrow guage reasoning he uses. I've seen too much suffering to think that there are simple answers to the problems we face.

I think that Pale is a sad example, I'm happy that there are very few people like him in the world. Women have been victimized by the Pales of the world for too many centuries and I think that the vast majority of people have come to realize this. Pale will to when he is reincarnated as a woman, I suspect his position on rape will change dramatically with a little intimate experience on the receiving end of the subject.

For myself, I will continue to do what I can to change the laws so that women will not feel like they have no choices and men will be required to take responsibility for their actions. Education will be required to make the culture realize that children are a shared responsibility and that we as a group have a social contract which should include care for all the children. I will continue to oppose the Pales of the world who would happily shift all the blame, all the responsibility, and all the punishment onto women. I will also continue to oppose the use of torture for any purpose, it's a barbaric anachronism with no place in the world any more.

Someone on this site wrote to me characterizing Pale as a pig, saying that arguing with him was akin to wrestling with a pig, the pig had fun but all you got was dirty. They went on to say that continuing to talk with Pale simply gave him a platform to spew his vitriol and we were probably all better of without it. I've come to realize that this is too true. I feel dirty after talking with Pale and listening to his spew. Having enjoyed as much of this as I can stand I find that I must bid Pale a sad farewell, I think he will go far and I doubt that I will miss him when he's gone.

You gotta admit that the dog barking thing he said was a real topper though--what, there can't be 6 or 7 people in the whole world with that high a level of insensitivity. Ask not for whom the dog barks, it barks for thee.