"I Chose Abortion and I am Proud"

[roguenuke]

If we were posting judgements of this girl on her forum, then we should be banned from that forum. But we are all on this forum, therefore, unless someone who moderators this forum disagrees, the whole thread was started with her statement from that forum and was taken as a debate on if we thought this was right or not. If the moderators of this forum find a problem with this thread, then it should be removed, otherwise, there should not be an issue with anyone expressing their opinions on this girl's choices so long as the discussion remains civil and people aren't bashing one another. If I am wrong, then I apologize for misunderstanding the point of this thread and will find another thread to comment on. But then someone would have to tell me what the point of this thread is, because I can't figure out anything else from what was first posted.

 

[1069]

You need also be aware that you are posting "judgments" of the numerous members of this forum who have also terminated one or more pregnancies.

 

[Felicity]

You need also be aware that you are posting "judgments" of the numerous members of this forum who have also terminated one or more pregnancies.

Judging actions of a person is not judging a person's worth. Get over the "don't judge me" schtick--that's such a load.

 

[1069]

Judging actions of a person is not judging a person's worth. Get over the "don't judge me" schtick--that's such a load.

It does not seem to me that the new forum member is judging anyone's "actions" (she claims to have no problem with abortion) but rather people's feelings about their actions, and also their honesty and openness regarding those feelings.
She expressed disapproval that Kaya 1. does not regret having an abortion, and 2. does not have the decency to keep her mouth shut about this fact.

There are others, right here on this forum, who don't regret their abortions and decline to keep their mouths shut about that fact.
As well as some who do regret their abortions, and similarly decline to keep their mouths shut, and no doubt a great many others who either do or don't regret their abortions but nevertheless choose to keep their mouths shut about them, in either case.

I guess if it makes the new forum member, or you, or anyone else on this thread feel better about themselves to criticize the reproductive choices of others and their feelings about those choices and their brazenness in daring to speak openly about those choices, then go for it.
It's not like your opinions matter to anyone in any event.

But don't think it's not obvious that's all you're doing: attempting to bolster your own inadequate senses of self worth.
What else could possibly be the purpose of such laughably self-righteous posturing?

 

[Felicity]

It does not seem to me that the new forum member is judging anyone's "actions" (she claims to have no problem with abortion) but rather people's feelings about their actions, and also their honesty and openness regarding those feelings.
She expressed disapproval that Kaya 1. does not regret having an abortion, and 2. does not have the decency to keep her mouth shut about this fact.

There are others, right here on this forum, who don't regret their abortions and decline to keep their mouths shut about that fact.
As well as some who do regret their abortions, and similarly decline to keep their mouths shut, and no doubt a great many others who either do or don't regret their abortions but nevertheless choose to keep their mouths shut about them, in either case.

I guess if it makes the new forum member, or you, or anyone else on this thread feel better about themselves to criticize the reproductive choices of others and their feelings about those choices and their brazenness in daring to speak openly about those choices, then go for it.
It's not like your opinions matter to anyone in any event.

But don't think it's not obvious that's all you're doing: attempting to bolster your own inadequate senses of self worth.
What else could possibly be the purpose of such laughably self-righteous posturing?

Seems to me you're the one telling people to shut up about their "feelings" on an issue. If one wants to express that he or she thinks it would be wise to keep some information to oneself--or a person should or should not "feel" a certain way about something, I'd expect you to hassle them about it, but not tell them they have no right to say it.

 

[1069]

Seems to me you're the one telling people to shut up about their "feelings" on an issue. If one wants to express that he or she thinks it would be wise to keep some information to oneself--or a person should or should not "feel" a certain way about something, I'd expect you to hassle them about it, but not tell them they have no right to say it.

One's feelings about one's own reproductive choices are not something you'll see me criticizing.
Certainly I don't agree with your reproductive choices; nevetheless, I'm not you.
You're living your life in a way I wouldn't want to, eschewing contraception as sinful and having six kids.
But I am not you.
I not only don't get to make these decisions for you, but I'd be nothing more than an abusive arsehole if I criticized your right to make these choices, or your right to feel good about these choices, or your right to express your pride and happiness in these choices you've made.

If I did so, I would expect to be called out for overstepping myself so, for exposing my own insecurities (because there's really no other reason any woman ever criticizes another woman's reproductive choices, other than insecurity about her own).

So. Since you're doing that, expect to be called out on it.

You don't see me saying, "God, I guess it's your right to have six kids if you want to- I mean, it's legal, at least for now- but you could at least have the decency to be a little bit ashamed of yourself. I mean, it's totally slutty and irresponsible. If you aren't ashamed of yourself, can't you at least have the decency to keep your mouth shut about it? Do you have to advertize it as if you're proud of your irresponsibility? Do you have to try to influence others to make the same mistakes you've made?"

If I said anything remotely akin to the above (if I said it earnestly, rather than sarcastically), you would certainly have the right to call me out and question my motives for doing so.
Because they couldn't possibly be good. You know?

addendum: I have not forgotten your long-ago attacks on NgDawg's decision to have biological children via fertility treatments.
I am not at all convinced that you are secure in your reproductive decisions nor in the direction your life is going, and the fact that you attack every other possible decision- from IVF, to limiting the size of one's family via contraception, to abortion- as inferior to your own is a pretty unmistakable clue.
And not just to me.

 

[Felicity]

One's feelings about one's own reproductive choices are not something you'll see me criticizing.
Certainly I don't agree with your reproductive choices; nevetheless, I'm not you.
You're living your life in a way I wouldn't want to, eschewing contraception as sinful and having six kids.
But I am not you.
I not only don't get to make these decisions for you, but I'd be nothing more than an abusive arsehole if I criticized your right to make these choices, or your right to feel good about these choices, or your right to express your pride and happiness in these choices you've made.

If I did so, I would expect to be called out for overstepping myself so, for exposing my own insecurities (because there's really no other reason any woman ever criticizes another woman's reproductive choices, other than insecurity about her own).

So. Since you're doing that, expect to be called out on it.

Ah...Ten...do you remember writing this two posts ago?

"I guess if it makes the new forum member, or you, or anyone else on this thread feel better about themselves to criticize the reproductive choices of others and their feelings about those choices and their brazenness in daring to speak openly about those choices, then go for it.
It's not like your opinions matter to anyone in any event.

But don't think it's not obvious that's all you're doing: attempting to bolster your own inadequate senses of self worth.
What else could possibly be the purpose of such laughably self-righteous posturing?"

And need I dig up the old posts of calling people "breeders" and "brood mares?"

 

[Felicity]

I'm sorry....It was "brood SOW" not brood mare...


You mean you would never say anything like this?

"

Apparently, in light of your take on abortion, hormonal birth control, and barrier contraceptives, the only thing you do consider "dignified" in a female is for her to spend her life wallowing around like some darned old brood sow and squirt out ten or fifteen curtain-monkeys before finally dropping dead.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/578015-post42.html

BTW: What is the insecurity you have that is revealed by this citicism of my reproductive choices? Hmmmmmm?

Oh...and are you calling yourself "nothing more than an abusive arsehole ?" Don't be so hard on yourself. :mrgreen:

 

[Cephus]

I guess if you think you can debate yourself then the rest of us can leave.

1069 has got you pegged.

 

[scourge99]

Originally Posted by Stinger
"It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. "

Which is shear idiocy and has no basis in science. The SCOTUS is NOT a scientific body.

You are missing the BIG picture. Take a breath and take two steps back.

The point the SCOTUS was making is there is no consensus whatsoever. Different religions argue one way and make valid points. Science argues one way and makes valid points. Different philosophers argue one way and make valid points. Because no viewpoint can be deemed the winner the SCOTUS "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Whether or not one viewpoint is ridiculous or not isn't the pint. The point the SCOTUS was making is that there is no answer the the question "when does life begin" that is universally true. Thus, the issue of when life begins was deferred.

That is not even what the bolded part is saying. It says what is in the womb is not alive, is not alive until it is born.
That is shear idiocy on Blackmun's part and has no basis in science and certainly the law should not use such ignorance in defining what the constitution says or doesn't say.

Only if you view life from a purely scientific standpoint. Many Jewish people do not believe life starts until live birth due to religious beliefs. The quote stated this if you bothered to read it.

Our laws or not based on theology and should not be based on theology.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/24936-i-chose-abortion-i-am-proud-14.html#post678477

Abortion has to do with morality. Science is deaf to morality. There is no science that says killing people/babies/anything is right or wrong. It is only your philosophy/religion that dictates that abortion is wrong, not science.

 

[scourge99]

Just look at the gymnastics!

I'm not even bothering with "degrees of rightness or wrongness" Just as there is a MOMENT of conception--no human organism, and then voila! a human organism exists

There is no magical "voila". Its a process over time like everything else in the universe the only difference is some things take more time than others. There is no magical "voile" part about it. Nothing instantly changes! Everything changes or occurs because of a process. We use words to abstractly categorize certain stages during these processes because our puny minds are better at thinking of things statically rather than dynamically.

--there is a clear difference between something that is right and something that is wrong. Just as one isn't a "little bit pregnant"--one is pregnant or not--either the action is right or it's wrong....all the circumlocution is so much froth.

I fail to see the comparison between being pregnant and not pregnant and being right or wrong? You seem to be arguing that the world is black and white; binary. Right and wrong have varying degrees. Torture and murder are both wrong but the degree of wrongness is important. I would argue that torturing someone is wrong but killing that person is also wrong but worse. IE if you were forced to torture or murder someone what would you do? There are obviously more underlying details on WHY torture is preferable to murder, nonetheless torture is better than murder.

One can determine if the action is wrong sans of philosophy and theology based upon the facts and how they consistantly agree or do not agree. Correct action agrees with consistent objective fact, incorrect action contradicts objective fact.

Personal moral culpability for the incorrect action IS a matter of philosophy and theology, however--OBJECTIVELY, it's still an incorrect action ...incorrect (AKA wrong).

Objective fact is that life persists and perpetuates and struggles to remain. Killing life is contrary to that objective fact--so killing is ALWAYS an incorrect action.

Please define what a "consistent objective fact" is. The term is ambiguous and I cannot validate your claim until it is defined.

Just because "life persists and perpetuates and struggles to remain" why must I change my actions to allow the perpetuation?

You say I must obey because perpetuating life is an objective fact therefore correct action must agree with it. Why must correct action agree with consistent objective facts? Who is going to stop me? Why should I care? Can't I just abide by consistent objective facts that pertain to me and not you? How do you make sure everyone knows the same consistent objective facts?

 

[Felicity]

Please define what a "consistent objective fact" is. The term is ambiguous and I cannot validate your claim until it is defined.

In order to help me answer that question for you, I have to ask you a question first: Is there such a thing as "good?" or even "evil?" Do one or both of those things even exist?

 

[1069]

You say I must obey because perpetuating life is an objective fact therefore correct action must agree with it. Why must correct action agree with consistent objective facts? Who is going to stop me? Why should I care? Can't I just abide by consistent objective facts that pertain to me and not you? How do you make sure everyone knows the same consistent objective facts?

Felicity subscribes to the "natural law" philosophy, based on the summa theologica of Thomas Aquinas, and believes that "natural law"- more, her understanding of "natural law"- should govern us all.

I'm not sure why she thinks so. Possibly a good psychoanalyst could uncover the reason.

 

[scourge99]

In order to help me answer that question for you, I have to ask you a question first: Is there such a thing as "good?" or even "evil?" Do one or both of those things even exist?

Morally? Yes, but it is all relative/personal. There is no standard for universal "good" or "evil".

 

[scourge99]

Felicity subscribes to the "natural law" philosophy, based on the summa theologica of Thomas Aquinas, and believes that "natural law"- more, her understanding of "natural law"- should govern us all.

I'm not sure why she thinks so. Possibly a good psychoanalyst could uncover the reason.

Which brings up a very good point. If Bob believes action 'A' is right and Jane believe action 'A' is wrong then who is right/wrong if Bob and Jane both have consistent but different reasoning for their beliefs? I believe abortion is such a conundrum.

 

[Felicity]

Felicity subscribes to the "natural law" philosophy, based on the summa theologica of Thomas Aquinas, ...

When someone's telling a joke, do you bust in with the punch-line too, Miss Smarty-pants:lol:

 

[Felicity]

Morally? Yes, but it is all relative/personal. There is no standard for universal "good" or "evil".

That's a contradictory statement. Do you believe there is such a thing as good/evil?

It seems you are saying, no. Is that correct?

 

[Felicity]

Which brings up a very good point. If Bob believes action 'A' is right and Jane believe action 'A' is wrong then who is right/wrong if Bob and Jane both have consistent but different reasoning for their beliefs? I believe abortion is such a conundrum.

It's a "good" point? Isn't that "relative?"

 

[scourge99]

That's a contradictory statement. Do you believe there is such a thing as good/evil?

It seems you are saying, no. Is that correct?

Depends on what you mean by "good" and what you mean by "evil".

I don't believe anyone is born with universal knowledge of what is right (one who consistently performs right acts; "good") and wrong (one who consistently performs wrong acts; "evil"). Personal views on what is good or bad is largely based on your personal experiences. There is no standard of "good" and "evil" because of this. This does not mean good and evil do not exist it just means they are relative and subjective.

It's a "good" point? Isn't that "relative?"

uhhh, yea, its an opinion.

 

[roguenuke]

Okay I got defensive to it being pointed out to me the rules of her site. I take this as you telling me that it is not allowed for me to criticize the writer. I did not feel that I was personally attacking her or anyone else. I do not hold animosity toward her even if she does say this to everyone she meets. I will say I believe, yes she is wrong to be using abortion as a birth control method and recommending it to other people. This is a decency thing. She has every right to say it, but that doesn't mean other people don't have a right to criticize her for saying it. As I've stated at least twice now, abortion should be a last choice option. Her statements seem to say that she doesn't just write this in forums, but that she says it to anyone she meets. She should not be afraid to tell others she had an abortion or even feel proud that she could make that decision, but many people would agree that it is wrong to brag about it, even pro-choice people. And I would be quite vocal about my own views to anyone I met who said this to me. There is no legitimate need for anyone to use abortion as birth control as opposed to other methods. Even the justices in Roe v. Wade alluded to this in the majority opinion and Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") says this is why she now advocates against the opinion that went in her favor. She never intended to help make abortion legal so it could become a birth control method.

 

[scourge99]

Okay I got defensive to it being pointed out to me the rules of her site. I take this as you telling me that it is not allowed for me to criticize the writer. I did not feel that I was personally attacking her or anyone else. I do not hold animosity toward her even if she does say this to everyone she meets. I will say I believe, yes she is wrong to be using abortion as a birth control method and recommending it to other people. This is a decency thing. She has every right to say it, but that doesn't mean other people don't have a right to criticize her for saying it. As I've stated at least twice now, abortion should be a last choice option. Her statements seem to say that she doesn't just write this in forums, but that she says it to anyone she meets. She should not be afraid to tell others she had an abortion or even feel proud that she could make that decision, but many people would agree that it is wrong to brag about it, even pro-choice people. And I would be quite vocal about my own views to anyone I met who said this to me. There is no legitimate need for anyone to use abortion as birth control as opposed to other methods. Even the justices in Roe v. Wade alluded to this in the majority opinion and Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") says this is why she now advocates against the opinion that went in her favor. She never intended to help make abortion legal so it could become a birth control method.

Do you have any reasons to back up what you say other than mere opinion? Opinions are dime a dozen. Consistent rational reason is what matters here.

 

[Felicity]

Do you have any reasons to back up what you say other than mere opinion? Opinions are dime a dozen. Consistent rational reason is what matters here.

It doesn't seem to matter to you since you claim there is no objective basis. You're back to your circular tricks, I see.:roll:

 

[1069]

Okay I got defensive to it being pointed out to me the rules of her site.

Oh? I hadn't noticed.

I take this as you telling me that it is not allowed for me to criticize the writer.

I can't "tell you that you're not allowed" to do shit. I'm not a moderator here.

I did not feel that I was personally attacking her or anyone else.

Oh?

I do not hold animosity toward her even if she does say this to everyone she meets.

White of you.

I will say I believe, yes she is wrong to be using abortion as a birth control method and recommending it to other people.

And your opinion matters because...?

This is a decency thing.

Oh...?

She has every right to say it, but that doesn't mean other people don't have a right to criticize her for saying it.

Indeed? I never said you don't have the "right" to criticize anyone you feel like.
I just said it makes you look like a pathetic, low self-esteem chump.
But do carry on, if it please you.

As I've stated at least twice now, abortion should be a last choice option.

Says who? Oh yes, right: you.
And I've stated at least twice now: your opinion about Kaya and her reproductive choices matters because...?

Her statements seem to say that she doesn't just write this in forums, but that she says it to anyone she meets.

Oh, really? Ermm... okay. And that's a problem for you because...?

She should not be afraid to tell others she had an abortion or even feel proud that she could make that decision, but many people would agree that it is wrong to brag about it, even pro-choice people.

And their opinions should matter to her because...?

And I would be quite vocal about my own views to anyone I met who said this to me.

That would be amusing to watch, I'm sure.

There is no legitimate need for anyone to use abortion as birth control as opposed to other methods.

And this is your business because...?
Oh, right... the pweshuss wittle fetuses. Gotcha.

Even the justices in Roe v. Wade alluded to this in the majority opinion and Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") says this is why she now advocates against the opinion that went in her favor.

And Norma McCorvey's opinion matters because...?

She never intended to help make abortion legal so it could become a birth control method.

And her intentions are relevant to other women's lives because?

:violin <----- this is for you, m'dear, and your wounded sensibilities.

 

[scourge99]

Do you have any reasons to back up what you say other than mere opinion? ~scourge99

It doesn't seem to matter to you since you claim there is no objective basis. You're back to your circular tricks, I see.:roll:

My objective basis is that we all live in chaos. Luckily we figured out working together is usually better than going solo.

 

[Felicity]

My objective basis is that we all live in chaos.

There is "absolute" empirical evidence that this is false.

Luckily we figured out working together is usually better than going solo.

I'll give you the same simple formula from the other thread that's come to this same stupid "relativism" garbage:

The entire relative position is built upon the self-contradictory, and thus intrinsically flawed, notion that there is an absolute foundation to the relative perspective. Simply put, if that is true, you have found the finality of the infinite. All I have to do is say, "well....that's not true for me...." and we have a paradox. It is logically flawed and therefore cannot be a true statement.