A Hypothetical

[JayDubya]

So you admit that a living human has higher brain function? That is a breakthrough.

As I said, some adults don't even understand basic biology... such that they can even try to draw false distinctions between living Homo sapiens.

 

[minnie616]

The representations of the pro choice position prevalent in this forum are not what you describe. Much of it seems to indicate a hostility toward the pre born. I mean, c'mon, blaming the baby for it's own conception? Equating it with insane rapists? Complete denial that the mom bears any responsibility for it's existence? It's not something I'd encountered before.

I have no hostility toward the pre born .
I had 6 pregnancies ,myself.
I have 4 grown children whom I love very much.
All my pregnancies were high risk but I loved planning for each addition to our family.
I love children very much.

I also really love being a grandma.

So even though I have no hostility toward the pre born, I also have no hostility toward a woman who chooses to have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.
I do not equate an embryo or fetus with a rapist and I promote birth control .
Only the mom bears responsibility? What about complete denial that dad bears any responsibility?

Actually consent to sex is only consent to the risk of pregnancy it is not consent to continue to gestate the pregnancy, if one ends up with unwanted pregnancy.

 

[iguanaman]

As I said, some adults don't even understand basic biology... such that they can even try to draw false distinctions between living Homo sapiens.

Like letting a vegetable like Terry Schiavo die in peace? There is no humanity in a brainless clump of cells which is what Terry was and a fetus is.

 

[Scrabaholic]

With all of my posts in this forum, I have never compared a fetus to a parasite or a criminal. My position rests on the fact that a fetus is not a person - as a matter of law, and as a matter of fact

Mine rests on the woman having bodily autonomy and the fact that pregnancy and childbirth has a huge effect on her body. I don't generally use the parasite argument, though I can see how it could be called parasitic and I don't think I have ever called it a criminal.

 

[Removable Mind]

There is no pretense on either side of the abortion issue about the conflicts and differences of beliefs regarding current abortion laws and Constitutional interpretations of rights which pertain to abortion.

The Abortion Forum is always a heated and an extremely emotional Forum. HOW CAN WE ALL participate in a way that encourages individual posters, from both sides of the issue, to make the content and context of their post less provocative?

Is it possible to devise or create ways or methods that will lead member interaction to engage in more civil and productive discussions and debates in the Abortion Forum?

We should all know that in order to devise or create solutions to any dilemma or problem - "the problem must first be defined".

IMHO, THE PROBLEM: "Most" Pro-Life arguments and Pro-Choice arguments aren't even closely related. How can we close the argument gap? IS IT POSSIBLE?

Both sides, sooner or later, make emotionally driven posts that will involve comments that weren't the best choice of words or things were said in a heated moment that can't be taken back. Obviously nobody forgets those posts. Rarely does perpetuating discussions based on those types of post leads to anything other than disastrous outcomes. Nothing is gained, ever.

First off, what's up with all the bolding?

It's better than all CAPS.

It's funny you call me dishonest then claim I'm labeling all pro-choice a certain way.

Do you want this type of exchange to stop by those both sides issue? What solution can we all employ to avoid that problem?

Several of my latest posts have made it very clear that there are differences in those who are pro-choice and those who are pro abortion extremists, like yourself. It is true,

Directly calling a poster an "Extremist", or the like, will immediately, if not sooner, derail threads. We both know that (All posters know that). Claims that "Extremists beliefs, opinions, and claims" are being employed by posters - are frequently made from both sides of this issue. What solution can be used by all to minimize such incidents or claims?

But, one thing is clear, or should be. The arguments that end up "directly" calling a poster an Extremist, Radical, or the like, isn't going to end well. What solution can be employed to avoid this problem?

I do constantly have to remind myself that not all pro choicers are like you and Choiceone, in fact I've had a couple pro-choicers PM me about how despicable they think some of the language used to describe the preborn is. Another thing that's funny is you saying I don't get metaphorical comparisons but then freak out if someone compares abortion to murder.

The language you describe as "despicable" that I use - and ChoiceOne uses disturbs you - along with poster. Do you believe that despicable language is exclusively used by Pro-Choice Advocates? If we are to apply any element of honestly to this "complaint", then it might be reasonable to say that despicable language is also used by Pro-Life Advocates. So...What is a viable solution for us all to employ to overcome this problem?

I might add that...

Maybe it would be good to encourage those make such PMs to directly speak up in the forum about the types of language that they deem to be so despicable? To try there best to be very specific about what's being said that is despicable...while at the same time refrain from making direct attacks about the the poster. Shouldn't that how it should be from both sides of the issue?

We both know that in the heat of an emotional argument, by evidence of the arguments or exchanges that we witness. Apparently determining whether or not the language we see used in a post as "literal" or "figurative" sadly becomes unimportant. The use of figurative analogies nearly always destroy the essence of thread topics.

By evidence of so many posts, a lot of folks just can't stop and evaluate literal vs figurative posts, and therefore will make replies congruent to their knee jerk response is - rather than making posts regarding what we truthfully know those post are making reference to or claiming. One that happens - debates and discussions collide and become completely engulfed in irrelevant fights that lead nowhere.

And in a lot of instances, the distinction between opinion and fact become unrecognizable and exchanges fall into the abyss of chaotic rhetoric.

In the end...all knows that these types of exchanges happens from both sides of the Abortion related argument. What is a possible solution to minimize this problem?

Speaking for myself, I'm more than willing to make clarifications, offer sourced evidence, or other verifiable information regarding any post I make, which some poster perceives as "despicable".

FOR ME...it really helps when posters can have discussions that are based on and/or related to actually laws or biological facts that are from legitimate sources.

On Both Sides of the Issue: Posts that originate from comparatives are frequently interpreted by both sides as despicable, inflammatory, or even defamatory. We all need to ask posters if they could be more "literal" in their descriptive comparisons.

While on the subject of Metaphors and/or Comparisons...

Let me offer an example of my perspective of your using the word "murder" in most cases. I don't perceive your use of the word "murder" as a comparative, but rather is being used way more as a direct accusation.

Here's how I rationalize the above:

If you are trying to convey that your personal beliefs hold that abortion is "murder" - DESPITE CURRENT LAWS OR CURRENT INTERPRETATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS . That's way easier for me to put into context your use of the word "murder". Nuances have meaning and sometime are important to clarify.

Those on Both sides of the issue: Maybe posts that include comparisons such as behaviors that born persons engage in - that are used to illustrate "similar" behaviors by various stages of the unborn - need to be declared as such. Apparently too many people become disturbed and lose sight of the objectives of the debate or discussion - don't delineate the difference between

Can you just not see that that's how we see it?

1) All your BS claims - about how we hate women or don't think they're equal - are simply diversions and distractions to divert attention away from what abortion does.

2) I think pro-lifers think that - if we can just get you all to see that the baby in the womb is actually a human life - that that will make some difference.

3) But I recognize that the thought of actually killing young human life is just is not that big of a deal to some.

4) Finally, what problem will I never be a solution to?

5) According you, abortion is no problem at all.

6) Shoot the pre-born - who are to blame for having the audacity to even exist - and/or - abortion is the solution to all those uppity fetuses.

Your itemized comments above are probably the most common set of fundamental arguments that defines "the problems" associated with abortion by the Pro-life advocates.

That itemized list DOES NOT REFLECT the fundamental arguments, which are used to "define the problems" associated with abortion by Pro-choice advocates.

Consequently, the reason Pro-Life advocates and Pro-Choice advocates stay in constant conflict is because WE CANNOT MUTUALLY AGREE ON WHAT THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS ARE...and consequently we'll never be able to create a solution until we do.

 

[Lursa]

Person A pushes person B off a pier into the ocean knowing that B can't swim. A, being off balance, then falls in himself and B manages to grab and cling to A in an effort to keep her head above water. If B lets go of A, she'll drown for sure. A manages to take out the gun he's carrying (pretend this is a beach in Texas) and shoots B then claims it was in self defense. Was it?

Edit: I need to add that A is a strong swimmer and, although it would be more of a struggle, he could have made it ashore with B clinging to him.

Let's start with...there are 2 **persons** involved in this scenario.

So Sangha's just plain wrong....it cant be anything about abortion. :mrgreen:

 

[Lursa]

The story is about two people. Abortion is about one person and one fetus

Damn! You stole my line!

 

[Lursa]

How many times is abortion referred to as "self defense"?

I dont use that argument.

Dont need to.

 

[Lursa]

It occurs to me that if ProChoicers (of which I'm one...with limits) would simply admit that an abortion is a sad thing . . . not something to be cheered about as a right to be exercised, but a sad decision to make, the differences between us all would disappear. .

One can only say it so many times. The self-righteous outrage of the pro-life people drowns it out and claims 'it doesnt matter....a baby is dead!'

No one 'likes' abortion and no one is 'pro-abortion.'

But adding a disclaimer to every post is pointless...they know, they dismiss it, just the way they dismiss the 'real life' consequences an unplanned pregnancy/baby can have on a woman's life or health or future. *That does not matter if a little baby dies!!!" :roll:

 

[MaggieD]

One can only say it so many times. The self-righteous outrage of the pro-life people drowns it out and claims 'it doesnt matter....a baby is dead!'

No one 'likes' abortion and no one is 'pro-abortion.'

But adding a disclaimer to every post is pointless...they know, they dismiss it, just the way they dismiss the 'real life' consequences an unplanned pregnancy/baby can have on a woman's life or health or future. *That does not matter if a little baby dies!!!" :roll:

I can't kill bugs. Any kind. Imagine how I feel about not allowing a baby to come into this world. I'm still ProChoice. It's not easy.

 

[Lursa]

Just like Jews, blacks, foreigners, non-Aryans, gypsies, the disabled, and the poor, right?

Are those all 'potential' groups of people, or have they all been 'realized?'

Are they lobbying to make fetal restroom accessibility? Shucks, I missed it.

 

[Lursa]

I can't kill bugs. Any kind. Imagine how I feel about not allowing a baby to come into this world. I'm still ProChoice. It's not easy.

I pick up the Wooly Bear caterpillers & newts I see when I move stuff here on my property (they are hibernating) and put them back in safe places.

I catch most spiders and put them outside or I leave them alone in 'neutral zones.'

 

[Lursa]

The differences wouldn't disappear completely, but the tone would be a lot different. When someone has to justify their position by describing the preborn in all manner of hostile and hateful ways; parasite, cancer, tumor, insane rapist (srsly), this is not someone I'm going to believe suddenly cares about born children. I understand your position, even though I don't agree with it, but I'll also believe in your compassion because I've seen it. There is a very real difference, to me, in those are pro choice and those who are just inexplicably hostile to the preborn.

Good luck finding a post where I expend that much characterization on a fetus. Something of no value is....nothing of value. Except to the mother or immediate family, as is completely natural and healthy...for mother and baby.

If anyone else want to 'imagine' all kinds of stuff, outside of actual medical and biological parameters, about some fantasy fetus (you are not aware of) feel free. It's your stress level.

 

[Removable Mind]

I can't kill bugs. Any kind. Imagine how I feel about not allowing a baby to come into this world. I'm still ProChoice. It's not easy.

Maggie, you said something the other day that I wanted to respond to, but I was so embattled with X that it got away from me.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to paraphrase and it's not going to be very right on, but I hope you remember and repost your thoughts. But it was something like: "IF PRO-CHOICE could admit that abortion is sad..etc, etc." Then you might be more sympathetic to the pro-choice arguments.

I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart that I would give anything if abortion were no longer necessary. I use the word "necessary" because I cannot know or judge the circumstances that all women experience for them to chose to have an abortion.

I believe that one day that the vast majority of women, regardless of their person life circumstances, will rarely have to seek an abortion. I personally will happily applaud such a day (if I'm still alive).

In the opinion of most pro-choice, for any government, public agency, or religion to demand "total" uncontested control women's sexual health and reproductive rights is nothing short of insane.

Women, as individuals, who have a unique situations, which involves having to decide the fate of a conception can only be determined by that individual. When a woman must seek out a medical provider to verify a conception and to discuss with that provider her situation, beliefs and options of choice. Not one single person anywhere on the planet should even know that that relationship and that discussion has occurred...and that includes any treatments or medical procedures discussed and decided on.

We have incredible amounts of data that tells us that for the "most part" women make sound choices regarding their conceptions. Abortion has been on the decline for a long time now. And there are reasons for that, which a fairly large number of pro-life advocates don't agree with because it involves contraception.

Now, common sense and logic tells us that denying contraception hits women and societies in very unhealthy ways. Most women are responsible and do take medically prescribed protection against pregnancy. But social impact to deny women access, including programs such as planned parenthood - is to impose a substantially great responsibility on society to provide far more complex services and the cost to taxpayers would also be substantially more.

I am always profoundly shocked to hear pro-life arguments that include "Pro-Choice have no respect, concern or feelings toward a conception or human life", when I see the opposite stated over and over and over by pro-choice advocates. Pro-Choice arguments are not about the lack of concern for the unborn. But the priorities in this matter is and must always be focused on the born. The problems and solutions must revolve around the born before the unborn. Through those solution seeking processes that involve the born - will the unborn be way more protected in the long-haul.

Thanks...

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie, you said something the other day that I wanted to respond to, but I was so embattled with X that it got away from me.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to paraphrase and it's not going to be very right on, but I hope you remember and repost your thoughts. But it was something like: "IF PRO-CHOICE could admit that abortion is sad..etc, etc." Then you might be more sympathetic to the pro-choice arguments.

I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart that I would give anything if abortion were no longer necessary. I use the word "necessary" because I cannot know or judge the circumstances that all women experience for them to chose to have an abortion.

I believe that one day that the vast majority of women, regardless of their person life circumstances, will rarely have to seek an abortion. I personally will happily applaud such a day (if I'm still alive).

In the opinion of most pro-choice, for any government, public agency, or religion to demand "total" uncontested control women's sexual health and reproductive rights is nothing short of insane.

Women, as individuals, who have a unique situations, which involves having to decide the fate of a conception can only be determined by that individual. When a woman must seek out a medical provider to verify a conception and to discuss with that provider her situation, beliefs and options of choice. Not one single person anywhere on the planet should even know that that relationship and that discussion has occurred...and that includes any treatments or medical procedures discussed and decided on.

We have incredible amounts of data that tells us that for the "most part" women make sound choices regarding their conceptions. Abortion has been on the decline for a long time now. And there are reasons for that, which a fairly large number of pro-life advocates don't agree with because it involves contraception.

Now, common sense and logic tells us that denying contraception hits women and societies in very unhealthy ways. Most women are responsible and do take medically prescribed protection against pregnancy. But social impact to deny women access, including programs such as planned parenthood - is to impose a substantially great responsibility on society to provide far more complex services and the cost to taxpayers would also be substantially more.

I am always profoundly shocked to hear pro-life arguments that include "Pro-Choice have no respect, concern or feelings toward a conception or human life", when I see the opposite stated over and over and over by pro-choice advocates. Pro-Choice arguments are not about the lack of concern for the unborn. But the priorities in this matter is and must always be focused on the born. The problems and solutions must revolve around the born before the unborn. Through those solution seeking processes that involve the born - will the unborn be way more protected in the long-haul.

Thanks...

Eloquent, RM. Very well said. I'm ProChoice myself; you've expressed many of my own thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Paleocon]

Are those all 'potential' groups of people, or have they all been 'realized?'

Are they lobbying to make fetal restroom accessibility? Shucks, I missed it.

They have also at times been considered subhuman.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Person A pushes person B off a pier into the ocean knowing that B can't swim. A, being off balance, then falls in himself and B manages to grab and cling to A in an effort to keep her head above water. If B lets go of A, she'll drown for sure. A manages to take out the gun he's carrying (pretend this is a beach in Texas) and shoots B then claims it was in self defense. Was it?

Edit: I need to add that A is a strong swimmer and, although it would be more of a struggle, he could have made it ashore with B clinging to him.

Like most pro lifer's your begging the question that needs to be answered. Your assuming that a unborn human qualifies as a person.

Because of the basic fact we know that human does not need to be synonymous with person since there are plenty of entities who could qualify as one like a angel or a advanced artificial intelligence like Cortana as shown in the halo series video games or maybe even a leprechaun!

Since you want to get all fictional on us then I can do the same thing as well!

Now let's say that person A is ME and person B was Jenny from the show ''My life as a teenage robot'' now I'm quite sure if I shot her in the head and dismantle her body most would have a problem with it. The question is why though? She is completely non human but could definitely qualify as a person.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

They have also at times been considered subhuman.

It doesn't matter in the slightest! Even if a entity is a subhuman, the question of rather it should have a moral right to life or not can still be answered.

 

[Paleocon]

It doesn't matter in the slightest! Even if a entity is a subhuman, the question of rather it should have a moral right to life or not can still be answered.

Just curious, what's your opinion of Hitler?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I think his point was at some points in history they were labelled as "non-persons" in order to justify atrocities like slavery and genocide done against these people groups.

They were labled non persons based on skin color and ethnicity. Now do you honestly think when looking at the bigger picture here when exploring the stars more, do you think we will be using those two items to determine if a entity should be considered a person or not? Of course not! This is the part you guys seem to neglect when making a history comparison based just on the species the organisms belonged to which can be entirely ignored! Then the biggest problem is that most of you can come out of watching Avatar coming out of the movie theater and still think person=human if that is true, then it logically follows then that only members of a particular species can have a moral claim to a right to life but we shouldn't believe that now should we?

A fetus is a human life, that should be the criteria for protection.

Species membership should not be the determining factor to determine if a entity should have a right to life or not.

Not whether or not it's a "person."

You can't avoid the topic of personhood all together and come to a simplistic conclusion like you have here. That is one of the main points in the abortion debate.

Such arguments allow for human rights abuse as is the case with abortion now. Abortion is the slavery of our time to be corrected.

I suggest you read through this 60+ Anti-Abortion Arguments Refuted | Fight For Sense

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Just curious, what's your opinion of Hitler?

Why should it matter in the slightest? It's of none of your concern how I felt about him.

 

[choiceone]

I can't kill bugs. Any kind. Imagine how I feel about not allowing a baby to come into this world. I'm still ProChoice. It's not easy.

Trust me, if you lived in Tokyo in the summer, you would find that you are completely capable of killing cockroaches. They are the size of silver dollars, they can fly, they are aggressive, they carry dangerous germs and serious diseases, they do not discriminate between the homes of the poor and the rich or the dirty and the clean. Their annual genetic adaptations overcome preventives that have worked against them in the past. I knew women in Tokyo who wouldn't swat a fly or squash an ant but justified an exception for roaches on the grounds that the Sun Goddess did not harm flies or ants but said killing cockroaches was okay.

And none of that has to affect your views of a human embryo or fetus.

 

[Paleocon]

Why should it matter in the slightest? It's of none of your concern how I felt about him.

Ok. That says a lot.

 

[Lursa]

They have also at times been considered subhuman.

But were they 'potential'? Or had they realized their potential as members of society?

 

[Paleocon]

But were they 'potential'? Or had they realized their potential as members of society?

Have newborns?