Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

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.

If you can prove my points wrong mare, I will move from them. I am a thinking person and won't hold an indefensible position. I can't think of a reason to move from my position if you are unable to prove any bit of it wrong.

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.

Exactly what credible "proof" or "fact" have you presented that contradicts my position mare? Which one of the three legs of my position have you invalidated?

1. Unborns are human beings. Is it that one? Lets see any credible evidence that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

2. Human beings have a right to live? That one? It is right there in the founding documents and constitution of the country.

3. All rights are secondary to the right to live? Surely you haven't beaten that one.

So far, you have provided no fact that contradicts any part of my position.

He was pretty hateful and compassionless towards those whom he saw as opposing his position too.

Not as hateful as you mare. You are the one who has calle me some very hatefull names mare and the personal attacks have been over the top. There is some hate here mare, but it is coming from you.

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 never thought to change your mind mare. In order for one to change one's mind, one must first be a thinking person. At one time, I was not on the pro life side of the argument. I was confronted with an argument that I could not defeat and being a thinking person, was left with two options. First, I could hold my position even though I couldn't adequately defend it and being a thinking person, that option was not for me or I could modify my position to reflect what I had learned to be the truth.

I have known all along that you were not a thinking person mare. Your entire postion is based on emotion, distortion, and outright lies. No thinking person would hold such a position for more than a heartbeat.

I think that Pale is a sad example,

You don't "think" at all mare. You wring your hands, plead for sympathy, try your best to wring emotions from people in lieu of expressing iron clad arguments, and you fabricate. But you do not think.

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.

Vitreol is it now? Is that your newest tack for trying to discredit my position and relieve yourself of the burden of effectively arguing against it? You have tried everything else, you may as well try this one as well. God knows you certainly haven't tried actually arguing against the points.

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.

I am still waiting for you to offer up some proof that the source of a trauma is more important than how profound the trauma might be. Of course, you won't because you can't. You distort and lie and try to make the point into something that it isn't.

Since you are exiting the discussion a loser, take care to not let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

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.

What's the point of all this? I still don't understand why you can't just debate his arguments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What's the point of all this? I still don't understand why you can't just debate his arguments.

The point is that there is no debate, every time I post something he calls me a liar and says "what have babies done to deserve to die?" I thought I explained very clearly in my post (the one to which you have responded) why I was no longer going to post to Pale. I gave examples and summed up, what don't you understand? Have you read his posts about barking dogs and rape? I'm puzzled by your post. If you have a specific question, then please ask it, otherwise I don't know what it is that you want me to explain to you.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The point is that there is no debate, every time I post something he calls me a liar and says "what have babies done to deserve to die?" I thought I explained very clearly in my post (the one to which you have responded) why I was no longer going to post to Pale. I gave examples and summed up, what don't you understand? Have you read his posts about barking dogs and rape? I'm puzzled by your post. If you have a specific question, then please ask it, otherwise I don't know what it is that you want me to explain to you.

My apologies. I'll try to be more clear. You and palerider are engaged in a serious debate on the topic of abortion. You latest rant about how palerider is a heartless pig that reminds you of white supremacists has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. What I was trying to say was that I would like to see you at least attempt to refute palerider's arguments with evidence and logic, instead of namecalling and emotion.

 

[palerider]

The point is that there is no debate, every time I post something he calls me a liar and says "what have babies done to deserve to die?" I thought I explained very clearly in my post (the one to which you have responded) why I was no longer going to post to Pale. I gave examples and summed up, what don't you understand? Have you read his posts about barking dogs and rape? I'm puzzled by your post. If you have a specific question, then please ask it, otherwise I don't know what it is that you want me to explain to you.

Try being honest in your debate, and I won't point out that you are being dishonest.

There is a debate to be had, but it's sole purpose is to expose the inherent dishonesty in your position. Not necessarily just yours, but all pro choicers. You can not bear to simply state honestly that you favor letting women kill their children, without legal consequence, for no better reason than convenience (which is the truth) so you invent this entire myth woven of inaccurate science, imagined social consequences, and deliberate lies that serves no purpose other than to divert the conversation away from the sad and tragic truth of your position.

 

[Coyote]

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.

There is a difference between rational and irrational fears and there are degrees of trauma. One is legitimate and the other, as real as it is to the sufferer, it is considered mental illness.

Again, I think it is truely disingenious to make that sort of comparison. To use words you have (legitimately) said to me before - I thought better of you.

Pregnancy is a huge huge commitment, physical, financial, and emotional investment. Being made pregnant through violence and force, and possibly without the resources to sustain that pregnancy and raise a child is very different then being traumatized by a barking dog.

 

[Coyote]

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?

I am not using trauma as a justification. But I am saying that no woman should be forced to bare a child, with the attendent health and mortality risks against her will. No one has the right to force that on her or use her body for that purpose.

Rape is certainly an act that is against her will and if there be no other legitimate reason for abortion - rape, in my mind, always will be.

Perhaps too that is why, among many other reasons, it is so much worse then trauma from a barking dog. A barking dog will never make you pregnant.

 

[palerider]

There is a difference between rational and irrational fears and there are degrees of trauma. One is legitimate and the other, as real as it is to the sufferer, it is considered mental illness.

Again, I think it is truely disingenious to make that sort of comparison. To use words you have (legitimately) said to me before - I thought better of you.

If I am attacked in a particular neighborhood and have reason to believe that the one who attacked me might still be there, then to avoid that neighborhood is rational. The sort of trauma that I understand is being talked about with regard to rape is trauma where a woman might become mistrustful of all men rather than her attacker or her attackers territory. Any fear not directed towards her attacker in particular or an area where he might still be is irrational. It is what it is.

Pregnancy is a huge huge commitment, physical, financial, and emotional investment. Being made pregnant through violence and force, and possibly without the resources to sustain that pregnancy and raise a child is very different then being traumatized by a barking dog.

Explain. If I am traumatized by any given source to the point that I can no longer function in public exactly how is pregnancy worse? You are attatching your own personal emotion and bias to this issue and doing so is a sure way to find yourself on the wrong side of the argument.

And a woman has no responsibility to raise a child. She may drop it off at a fire station or a police department no questions asked, or opt to not take it with her when she leaves the hospitial.

 

[palerider]

I am not using trauma as a justification. But I am saying that no woman should be forced to bare a child, with the attendent health and mortality risks against her will. No one has the right to force that on her or use her body for that purpose.

Of course you are using it as a justification to kill. You just suggested that she should be allowed to kill the chid rather than bear it.

Rape is certainly an act that is against her will and if there be no other legitimate reason for abortion - rape, in my mind, always will be.

And what exactly has the child done that its life should be forfiet? It always comes back to that doesn't it? If you are going to kill another human being, it would be good if you could at least give a good and rational reason.

 

[top gun]

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?

Your lack of compasion for women has been so documented so many times I guess this shouldn't surprise me. But it still does.

Originally Posted by palerider
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.


Originally Posted by palerider
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

A barking dog is an aggravation. Even a barking attacking dog (which is not at all what you said) would still be an animal v. human. A dog barking could never traumatize a woman the way rape does. Same woman... do both... rape ALWAYS worse!

First off the barking dog didn't beat and violently hold the woman down and force his penis into her.

Secondly a person having superior intelligence over an animal may be traumatized or afraid of a dog but they can also figure out ways to avoid a dog. As afraid as they may be they know they are smarter than a dog. A dog does not stalk its victims a rapist does.

The fact that you see no difference tells volumes about your inability to fairly judge issues. There is nothing irrational about being traumatized after you've been raped. It is not an irrational fear. It is real to that person. Just as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is real to a shell shocked solider. And again that would be person against person violence. Not an animal barking.

I can only hope life gives you the opportunity to personally experience some of the things you so flippantly disregard.

 

[palerider]

Your lack of compasion for women has been so documented so many times I guess this shouldn't surprise me. But it still does.

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

barking dog is an aggravation. Even a barking attacking dog (which is not at all what you said) would still be an animal v. human. A dog barking could never traumatize a woman the way rape does. Same woman... do both... rape ALWAYS worse!

Tell someone who suffers from cnophobia that a barking dog is just an aggrivation. Or tell anyone who suffers from any of the plethora of phobias that whatever caused their personal trauma was just an aggrivation.

As to how badly a person can be traumatized by any particular thing, it depends upon the person. I personally know women who have been raped that go on with their lives. I read about people who have cnophobia who are unable to even leave their homes and suffer severe panic attacks when they so much as hear a dog on the street. Who is more traumatized?

The fact that you see no difference tells volumes about your inability to fairly judge issues.

The fact that you are arguing this point tells once again that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I can only hope life gives you the opportunity to personally experience some of the things you so flippantly disregard.

Life has given me ample trauma and ample opportunity to pity myself or seek pity from others. I CHOOSE not to go down that road.

If you can demonstrate that the source of trauma is more important than how profoundly the person is affected by that trauma, by all means do so. Otherwise, you are just wringing your hands.

 

[Coyote]

Of course you are using it as a justification to kill. You just suggested that she should be allowed to kill the chid rather than bear it.

No. I am not using trauma as a justification.

I am using rape.

There is a difference.

And what exactly has the child done that its life should be forfiet? It always comes back to that doesn't it? If you are going to kill another human being, it would be good if you could at least give a good and rational reason.

The child has done nothing. But neither has the woman. Nine months of pregnancy is certainly not just a ride in the park or an "inconvenience" and has a host of attendent risks attached to it even, in some cases suicide when you add pregnancy to the trauma inflicted from the rape. She is being forced to give up her body, her job in some cases, her life in some cases, her health in some cases...being penalized for what?

Neither child nor mother has done a thing to deserve this, yet one or the other may be punished. In this case, the mother's rights to her body and life are stronger then the rights of what she carries within her.

 

[Coyote]

Explain. If I am traumatized by any given source to the point that I can no longer function in public exactly how is pregnancy worse? You are attatching your own personal emotion and bias to this issue and doing so is a sure way to find yourself on the wrong side of the argument.

No, I am not attaching my own bias here, any more then you are. Pregnancy is not a psychiatric illness.

And a woman has no responsibility to raise a child. She may drop it off at a fire station or a police department no questions asked, or opt to not take it with her when she leaves the hospitial.

I don't think pregnancy and birthing a child is quite the same as dumping a litter of kittens off at the pound.

 

[palerider]

The child has done nothing. But neither has the woman. Nine months of pregnancy is certainly not just a ride in the park or an "inconvenience" and has a host of attendent risks attached to it even, in some cases suicide when you add pregnancy to the trauma inflicted from the rape. She is being forced to give up her body, her job in some cases, her life in some cases, her health in some cases...being penalized for what?

Coyote. This court sentences you to 9 months of hard labor on a diet of bread and water, no tv, no radio, no books, daily spankings, and mismatched clothes OR death. Which would you choose?

The fact remains that all rights are secondary to the right to live. You simply can't make an argument against that statement that applies equally to all human beings. If you could, this argument wouldn't exist. Any argument that you can put forward is going to be descriminatory at best.

 

[palerider]

I don't think pregnancy and birthing a child is quite the same as dumping a litter of kittens off at the pound.

So are you saying that after she has the child she may find that she loves it? Doesn't that go against everything you have been saying?