Abortion and Morality

[Coyote]

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.

No. Not when it comes to pregancy by force. No one has the right to FORCE pregnancy on any woman. Never.


Mismatched clothes?


Daily spankings?

 

[Coyote]

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?

No, it doesn't.

I'm saying that no one knows exactly what might happen maybe she will, maybe she won't, maybe she'll give it up and then regret it, or become deepy depressed over the the whole thing and commit suicide. I don't know. All I know is that pregnancy and child birth is a huge emotional, physical, and financial investment. It is not something that should be forced upon someone against their will. And rape most definately is against her will.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20052]Answer the question. Is the source of the trauma more important than how profound the trauma is?

Is a gunshot to the chest more dangerous than a nightstick to the chest? Just like the gunshot Rape creates more trauma than a dog barking. Plain & simple. Leave the philosophy to the philosophers.

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.

Still not forcible battery and RAPE anyway you play it!

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?

(A) You scare me with your knowing anybody who's been raped.
(B) We are not picking out some bazaar isolated incidences. We're talking as a general rule.

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

Well I'll take not knowing what I'm talking about if the option is being you. You sir come across as having serious problems. Vastly overcompensating and some kind of woman hate syndrom... possibly some kind of a mother issue. I don't know but I'd try to find out if I were you.

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.

Well obviously it has not been hard enough, long enough. Perhaps Karma will yet come to call!

 

[palerider]

No. Not when it comes to pregancy by force. No one has the right to FORCE pregnancy on any woman. Never.

Then you need to work towards changing the basis upon which our legal system was founded, and tell me, exactly what value do you believe that your rights will have if you don't first have the right to live.

Or are you just suggesting that "that group's" right to live doesn't supercede all other rights like a real bigot?

 

[palerider]

Is a gunshot to the chest more dangerous than a nightstick to the chest? Just like the gunshot Rape creates more trauma than a dog barking. Plain & simple. Leave the philosophy to the philosophers.

Let the tap dancing begin. Why not admit that you misspoke and stop painting yourself into a corner. If you survive a gunshot to the chest and die from the night stick blow, then the trauma from the night stick was more profound. Do you think that it matters more whether the victim died from a bullet or a blow?

Still not forcible battery and RAPE anyway you play it!

Again, you are trying to make the source of a trauma more important than how profound the trauma is. You have let your emotions lead you into an indefensible postion. Admit it and extricate yourself from the corner that you have painted yourself into.

If one is unable to leave one's home then one is more deeply traumatized than one who can leave home. Admit that you spoke in error and stop this rediculous monkey dance you are doing. The source of a trauma is of less importance than how profound the trauma is. That is the fact and no amount of emotional hand wringing is going to change it.

(A) You scare me with your knowing anybody who's been raped.

You don't know anyone who has been the victim of a crime? Live long enough and sooner or later you will. The woman that I know who was raped is a nurse at UNC Chapel Hill. She was raped by an intoxicated student while working a night shift almost 2 decades ago. She still works the night shift at the same location.

(B) We are not picking out some bazaar isolated incidences. We're talking as a general rule.

Anytime someone expresses an irrational fear we are talking about isolated instances. As a general rule, people who experience a psychological trauma get over it and go on with their lives.

Well I'll take not knowing what I'm talking about if the option is being you. You sir come across as having serious problems. Vastly overcompensating and some kind of woman hate syndrom... possibly some kind of a mother issue. I don't know but I'd try to find out if I were you.

So now you are a psychologist? If you are, you are a bad one. No decent psychologist, psychiatrist, or councelor, for that matter, would suggest that the source of a trauma is more important than how profound a trauma is which is what brought about this tangent in the first place.

And it is good to see you admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Well obviously it has not been hard enough, long enough. Perhaps Karma will yet come to call!

You think? No you don't think. Perhaps you hope. Personally, I don't hope that you or anyone else ever gets to experience the things that I have experienced or see the things that I have seen. You should be aware that wishing bad upon other people is a serious invitation for karma to come and visit you.

 

[palerider]

No, it doesn't.

I'm saying that no one knows exactly what might happen maybe she will, maybe she won't, maybe she'll give it up and then regret it, or become deepy depressed over the the whole thing and commit suicide. I don't know. All I know is that pregnancy and child birth is a huge emotional, physical, and financial investment. It is not something that should be forced upon someone against their will. And rape most definately is against her will.

So you admit that no one knows but would err on the side of killing an innocent just to be sure? But then no, that doesn't work either because women often experience severe depression after killing their child and are very often troubled by that act for the rest of their lives as well.

And you are right, no woman shoud be raped. But no child should be killed for the actions of his or her father either. Which is the worse wrong? Being sexually assaulted or being killed for the crimes of your father?

 

[top gun]

palerider;20082]Let the tap dancing begin. Why not admit that you misspoke and stop painting yourself into a corner. If you survive a gunshot to the chest and die from the night stick blow, then the trauma from the night stick was more profound. Do you think that it matters more whether the victim died from a bullet or a blow?

Well if that's your dance it's not very good. "If" is your only key word hear. I think anybody having the option would pick getting hit in the chest with a nightstick over being gunshot in the chest. It's a dog barking v. RAPE.

Again, you are trying to make the source of a trauma more important than how profound the trauma is. You have let your emotions lead you into an indefensible postion. Admit it and extricate yourself from the corner that you have painted yourself into.

Your argument is ridiculous. We all know that certain things are just overall worse than others to the masses. To try to defend your position that a barking dog (not even an attacking dog just a dog out barking) has the same or worse traumatic effect on women just because there is someone who is deathly afraid of dogs is not a comparison at all. Again when you say something foolish you go to your "apples and oranges" defense. Furthermore being afraid of dogs doesn't cancel out the fact the woman would still be overly traumatized by a vicious RAPE.

If one is unable to leave one's home then one is more deeply traumatized than one who can leave home. Admit that you spoke in error and stop this rediculous monkey dance you are doing. The source of a trauma is of less importance than how profound the trauma is. That is the fact and no amount of emotional hand wringing is going to change it.

You're silly. You know that RAPE is much more traumatic to a women than a dog barking. The fact that there is someone that cannot leave the house because they are scared of dogs is completely and totally different than what we are talking about. Overall by overwhelming majority everyone knows that RAPE is more traumatic to more than 99% of women hearing a dog bark. An individual can die from a small scratch... but it's not unraveling the Devinci Code to know it's not as dangerous as cancer.

You don't know anyone who has been the victim of a crime? Live long enough and sooner or later you will. The woman that I know who was raped is a nurse at UNC Chapel Hill. She was raped by an intoxicated student while working a night shift almost 2 decades ago. She still works the night shift at the same location.

I'm 50 years old. We're not discussing can a person get raped and ever leave the house again. We're disputing your heartless and ignorant comment that a woman hearing a dog barking is as traumatic to women as being forcibly RAPED.

Anytime someone expresses an irrational fear we are talking about isolated instances. As a general rule, people who experience a psychological trauma get over it and go on with their lives.

There is nothing irrational about being hypersensitive after the actual bad event has happened to you. It might be irrational to worry about things that might happen to you but never have or never could. But once something as traumatic as a brutal forcible rape has been inflicted on you it is not irrational to be traumatized... in fact it's quite normal.

So now you are a psychologist? If you are, you are a bad one. No decent psychologist, psychiatrist, or councelor, for that matter, would suggest that the source of a trauma is more important than how profound a trauma is which is what brought about this tangent in the first place.

Word smith all you want it still highlights your cruelty toward women. The fact that "trauma is trauma" does not in anyway win your argument. All that does is say that getting ran over by a motorcycle is traumatic and getting run over by a train is traumatic. No one is disputing there are people with all kinds of paralyzing fears. We are saying that on the whole, by over 99% allowing for some margin of error, women are much more traumatized by being RAPED than by hearing a dog bark. Post me some figures that state otherwise. If not than quit doing the hokey pokey and admit that as a group women fear and are much more traumatized by being RAPED than by hearing a dog bark.

And it is good to see you admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Man I'm glad I'm not you... you must have just a miserable life.

You think? No you don't think. Perhaps you hope. Personally, I don't hope that you or anyone else ever gets to experience the things that I have experienced or see the things that I have seen. You should be aware that wishing bad upon other people is a serious invitation for karma to come and visit you.

You know on this I believe you. I believe some things in your past have made you overcompensate for all of your shortcomings. I wish that your hate and anger wasn't directed so toward women probably because I have two girls. Maybe Karma will get you... maybe someones father will... I have no idea. But I can say this. In the long run being the way you are only brings bad things upon one. Although in person without the veil of anonymity I'm quite sure you are neither a brave nor outspoken man.

 

[palerider]

Well if that's your dance it's not very good. "If" is your only key word hear. I think anybody having the option would pick getting hit in the chest with a nightstick over being gunshot in the chest. It's a dog barking v. RAPE.

If I could know that getting hit with the stick woud be fatal whereas the gunshot would not, then I woud pick the gunshot. Since we can't know, the case is proven that the source of the trauma isn't as important as how profound it is.

Your argument is ridiculous. We all know that certain things are just overall worse than others to the masses. To try to defend your position that a barking dog (not even an attacking dog just a dog out barking) has the same or worse traumatic effect on women just because there is someone who is deathly afraid of dogs is not a comparison at all. Again when you say something foolish you go to your "apples and oranges" defense. Furthermore being afraid of dogs doesn't cancel out the fact the woman would still be overly traumatized by a vicious RAPE.

Now you have shown that your very presence on this tangent is a knee jerk, emotional reaction on your part. You don't even understand how this tangent came to be. It was argued that because the trauma of rape is so terrible, that a woman should be allowed to terminate the child of a rape. I pointed out that the source of the trauma is not as important as how profound the trauma is and simply used the example of one who can no longer even leave home because of a barking dog as an example. You have only reinforced my argument and I thank you for that.

You're silly. You know that RAPE is much more traumatic to a women than a dog barking. The fact that there is someone that cannot leave the house because they are scared of dogs is completely and totally different than what we are talking about. Overall by overwhelming majority everyone knows that RAPE is more traumatic to more than 99% of women hearing a dog bark. An individual can die from a small scratch... but it's not unraveling the Devinci Code to know it's not as dangerous as cancer.

Of course it is but that was never the point of this tangent. The point was that the source of a trauma isn't as important as how profound it is. On that point, I was, and still am correct.

I'm 50 years old. We're not discussing can a person get raped and ever leave the house again. We're disputing your heartless and ignorant comment that a woman hearing a dog barking is as traumatic to women as being forcibly RAPED.

I never made such an argument. Such an argument is the product of your fertile imagination. I simply, and correctly stated that the source of a trauma is not as important as how profoundly the trauma affects the victim. I am still waiting for you to prove that statement wrong and will wait forever because you can't prove it wrong.

There is nothing irrational about being hypersensitive after the actual bad event has happened to you. It might be irrational to worry about things that might happen to you but never have or never could. But once something as traumatic as a brutal forcible rape has been inflicted on you it is not irrational to be traumatized... in fact it's quite normal.

Of course hypersensitivity is irrational. If the hypersensitivity is psychological in nature, it is viewed and treated as a mental disorder. The rape is the trauma, the residual psychological effects are a separate issue and one source of psychological trauma is not inherently worse than another because some people are terribly traumatized by things that most of us hardly notice and some are not emotionally traumatized by things that most of us couldn't even imagine.

Word smith all you want it still highlights your cruelty toward women. The fact that "trauma is trauma" does not in anyway win your argument. All that does is say that getting ran over by a motorcycle is traumatic and getting run over by a train is traumatic. No one is disputing there are people with all kinds of paralyzing fears. We are saying that on the whole, by over 99% allowing for some margin of error, women are much more traumatized by being RAPED than by hearing a dog bark. Post me some figures that state otherwise. If not than quit doing the hokey pokey and admit that as a group women fear and are much more traumatized by being RAPED than by hearing a dog bark.

Words mean what they mean. Now you are suggesting that I am cruel to women because I won't unilatarally redefine words to support an indefensible argument?

And once again, you are arguing with yourself because I never suggested that most people are more, or even as traumatized by barking dogs as they would be if they were raped. That being said, however, the fact remains that the source of a trauma is not as important as how deeply affected the victim is.

Man I'm glad I'm not you... you must have just a miserable life.

Personal attacks in lieu of argument. At least you are true to your nature.

You know on this I believe you. I believe some things in your past have made you overcompensate for all of your shortcomings. I wish that your hate and anger wasn't directed so toward women probably because I have two girls. Maybe Karma will get you... maybe someones father will... I have no idea.
Actually, my past has shown me that I have very few shortcomings. I have survived things that whole generations now describe as unbearable trauma that keeps them from sleeping, eating, having healthy relationships, causes them deep depression, and leads them to suicide.

And I have no anger towards women any more than I have anger towards men. I am angry at women who murder children for no good reason but then, I feel the same anger towards men who do the same thing.

But I can say this. In the long run being the way you are only brings bad things upon one. Although in person without the veil of anonymity I'm quite sure you are neither a brave nor outspoken man.

Being honest and looking at issues directly brings bad things upon one? I am not emotional, and don't sugar coat issues to make them easier. If that is bad, then so be it. Deliberate deception as is the case with all pro choice arguments strikes me as the worse.

And you seem to be quite sure about a great deal of things that you don't have a clue on. I am very outspoken. In fact, if you care to meet for a beer and discuss this issue I would be happy to work such a meeting into my schedule or if you feel that a half hour in a bar isn't long enough, maybe we could work out a whole day offshore fishing. There is plenty of down time running out, trolling, and running in for discussion.

As to bravery, I don't know. I have some mementos from the war that say that I am brave, but I didn't feel particularly brave when I was doing the things that were later called brave. I remember being scared that I wasn't going to live out the next few minutes. If being brave is fearlessly doing a job that might well get you killed, then I guess that am not brave but if being brave is doing the job even though you are scared sh*tless, then I suppose that I am brave. That isn't a call that I can make.

 

[Coyote]

So you admit that no one knows but would err on the side of killing an innocent just to be sure? But then no, that doesn't work either because women often experience severe depression after killing their child and are very often troubled by that act for the rest of their lives as well.

That is actually debatable. We've argued that before and I've submitted research that shows those conclusions are flawed.

And you are right, no woman shoud be raped. But no child should be killed for the actions of his or her father either. Which is the worse wrong? Being sexually assaulted or being killed for the crimes of your father?

When it comes to rape and pregnancy being forced unwilling on a woman I feel her rights come first - her right to continue or abort the pregnancy. Otherwise...she is little more then a baby making machine in the eyes of the law. It's her body and she did nothing wrong to have this forced on her. And no, the baby did nothing wrong either. But HER right to life - her life, the right to choose whether or not she is willing to take the risks that go along with childbearing - are more important.

On the emotional side, should I become pregnant as a result of an act so horrific as rape and then forced to carry the pregnancy against my will (and I am not saying I would choose one way or the other) would to me be such a violation and betrayal of my rights, my body, myself not once but twice that I don't know what I would do. What I am aborting should I choose that - is a human being but it is at a stage that has no awareness, no sense of what is lost or gained, no nothing beyond potential. I think my rights - my awareness of what is happening to me and what is being forced on my body - are greater in this case.

 

[invest07]

Coyote
Your arguments concerning rape and abortion are strong emotional appeals but make little difference in the big picture.

Rape and incest add up to less than 2% of abortions. In 98%+ of abortions, the mother was fully aware that her sexual actions were reckless and a baby could be the result.

Rape/incest is a straw dog argument which affects less than 2% while diverting attention from the 98%+ of abortions.

The primary cause of unwanted pregnacies is reckless sexual behavior by the man and woman.

Do you have any solutions for reckless sexual behavior?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote
Your arguments concerning rape and abortion are strong emotional appeals but make little difference in the big picture.

They are no stronger then the emotional appeals of those saying mothers are killing their babies, or cutting them up or sucking their brains out.

Rape and incest add up to less than 2% of abortions. In 98%+ of abortions, the mother was fully aware that her sexual actions were reckless and a baby could be the result.

Why the emphasis on just the mother here when it comes to reckless actions?

Rape/incest is a straw dog argument which affects less than 2% while diverting attention from the 98%+ of abortions.

It is absolutely not a strawman argument because real people and lives are involved and affected here if you ban all abortions. They are not just numbers.

The primary cause of unwanted pregnacies is reckless sexual behavior by the man and woman.

Do you have any solutions for reckless sexual behavior?

Yes. Education. Widely and easily available birth control. I do not believe in undrestricted abortion.

But I will absolutely never take away the right of a woman who has been impregnated against her will and violated, to make the choice for abortion if she feels it necessary.

 

[palerider]

That is actually debatable. We've argued that before and I've submitted research that shows those conclusions are flawed.

But research also exists that doesn't suggest that the conclusions are flawed. Again, if you don't know, why not err on the side of caution.

When it comes to rape and pregnancy being forced unwilling on a woman I feel her rights come first - her right to continue or abort the pregnancy. Otherwise...she is little more then a baby making machine in the eyes of the law. It's her body and she did nothing wrong to have this forced on her. And no, the baby did nothing wrong either. But HER right to life - her life, the right to choose whether or not she is willing to take the risks that go along with childbearing - are more important.

You danced around the question. Let me ask again. Which is the greater wrong, being sexually assaulted or being killed for the crimes of your father?

 

[Coyote]

But research also exists that doesn't suggest that the conclusions are flawed. Again, if you don't know, why not err on the side of caution.



You danced around the question. Let me ask again. Which is the greater wrong, being sexually assaulted or being killed for the crimes of your father?

It is not that simple.

Which is the greater wrong:

Being killed for the crimes of your father (except you would have no awareness of this whatsoever)

Being raped and forced to bear the child of your rapist and fully aware at every step of the way that you have been violated not once, but twice in the process?

I think the wrongs balance each other out.

 

[palerider]

It is not that simple.

Which is the greater wrong:

Being killed for the crimes of your father (except you would have no awareness of this whatsoever)

Being raped and forced to bear the child of your rapist and fully aware at every step of the way that you have been violated not once, but twice in the process?

I think the wrongs balance each other out.

There is no contest coyote. Being denied your one and only life because of the crimes of someone else is by far the greater wrong. I understand that we are talking about tough decisions, but any rational solution simply has to fall on the side of putting an end to the greatest wrong and I can't think of much greater wrong than killing a child either out of convenience or because of the crimes of its father.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20092]If I could know that getting hit with the stick woud be fatal whereas the gunshot would not, then I woud pick the gunshot. Since we can't know, the case is proven that the source of the trauma isn't as important as how profound it is.

Since we do know that there is a much greater likelihood that a gunshot will cause more death and damage than being struck with a nightstick in general... probably about 99% of the time... we know that a gunshot causes more trauma. It's the same comparison I make about RAPE. Rape causes a trauma to women across the board that is not even comparable to your dog barking claim. I don't know of a case to cite where a woman who had the dog phobia was also forcibly RAPED and then said they were comparable. But even if they were that's one person. Your comparison was way out of line.

Now you have shown that your very presence on this tangent is a knee jerk, emotional reaction on your part. You don't even understand how this tangent came to be. It was argued that because the trauma of rape is so terrible, that a woman should be allowed to terminate the child of a rape. I pointed out that the source of the trauma is not as important as how profound the trauma is and simply used the example of one who can no longer even leave home because of a barking dog as an example. You have only reinforced my argument and I thank you for that.

I posted your quotes. I know exactly what you said. Your attempt was to down play the emotional trauma of a battered & RAPED women to that of someone terrified of a dog barking. It is a false comparison.

Of course it is but that was never the point of this tangent. The point was that the source of a trauma isn't as important as how profound it is. On that point, I was, and still am correct.

Word smithing an explanation doesn't change a thing. You are giving no (zero) information saying a trauma that is a 10 on a 1-10 scale is a 10 no matter where it comes from. Everyone knows that. The fact is for over 99% of women the dog barking fear compared to the after RAPE fear isn't even on the same planet. It was a horrible comparison.

Of course hypersensitivity is irrational. If the hypersensitivity is psychological in nature, it is viewed and treated as a mental disorder. The rape is the trauma, the residual psychological effects are a separate issue and one source of psychological trauma is not inherently worse than another because some people are terribly traumatized by things that most of us hardly notice and some are not emotionally traumatized by things that most of us couldn't even imagine.

It is totally normal for a woman to be traumatized by being forcibly RAPED. Anyone who says it's not is an insensitive heartless *****.

And once again, you are arguing with yourself because I never suggested that most people are more, or even as traumatized by barking dogs as they would be if they were raped. That being said, however, the fact remains that the source of a trauma is not as important as how deeply affected the victim is.

You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out, you do the Hokey Pokey and you shake it all about...

The fact is the trauma of being forcefully RAPED should never be compared to someone who has a "PHOBIA" about a dog barking. You love the oranges to apples thing but it is not the same thing at all. One is a preset irrational fear or condition. The other is a reaction and self preservation response to a horrible invasive crime that has been perpetrated on them by another human being.

And you seem to be quite sure about a great deal of things that you don't have a clue on. I am very outspoken. In fact, if you care to meet for a beer and discuss this issue I would be happy to work such a meeting into my schedule or if you feel that a half hour in a bar isn't long enough, maybe we could work out a whole day offshore fishing. There is plenty of down time running out, trolling, and running in for discussion.

I'm praying that you live somewhere in central Ohio. I would love to see your attempt to try and brow beat me...a man... the way you do women and not under cover of the computer. In fact I'd just love to see a picture of you to put a face with the chest pounding rant. I bet it would be very interesting.

As to bravery, I don't know...

Well I do. There is nothing brave about downplaying the affect of RAPE on women. There is nothing brave about trying to force your own personal birth control beliefs on women. There's nothing brave about wanting to force a woman to incubate and bear a child against her will because you want it that way.

But I will say this. You are a very good wake up call to America that there are those like you who would gladly roll back the clock and do enormous damage to women... and I presume other groups as well.

What I can tell you is that I believe the pendulum has shifted away from this neo-con rhetoric in favor of moderate points of view. We saw this start with the last election and I believe it will continue through the presidential election in 08. We will see.