Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,792 Year: 4,049/9,624 Month: 920/974 Week: 247/286 Day: 8/46 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion questions...?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 226 of 403 (602471)
01-28-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Huntard
01-27-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Evidence?
Yes, well the point was more to point out that your saying so cannot be seen as evidence. We don't know what the situation was like. I'm not saying that you would deliberately lie to us, but all observations are coloured through the eyes of the beholder. She was your friend, people do not think badly of their friends, even if there is reason to.
I'm not saying she was a bad person. All I'm saying is that we really have no basis for judging the accuracy of this tale, which makes it rather pointless to use.
I've been living in quebec my whole life. I know how society and the government approaches this issue, and I know that someone wanting to bring to terms an unwanted pregnancy will have trouble getting the ressources needed.
Why do you want to rob women of the choice of what happens to their body?
Question-begging epithet much ?
Why do you want to kill babies ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Huntard, posted 01-27-2011 4:44 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by jar, posted 01-28-2011 3:06 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2011 3:08 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 01-28-2011 4:17 PM slevesque has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 227 of 403 (602472)
01-28-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by slevesque
01-28-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Evidence?
Why do you want to kill babies ?
So far no one other than you has even mentioned killing babies.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:04 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:48 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9197
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 228 of 403 (602473)
01-28-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by slevesque
01-28-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Evidence?
I know how society and the government approaches this issue, and I know that someone wanting to bring to terms an unwanted pregnancy will have trouble getting the ressources needed.
What you "know" means nothing. Show us evidence that this is true. Show us evidence that the Quebec government wants "to kill babies". You make assertion after assertion but are woefully lacking in presenting any evidence for these assertions.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:04 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:09 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 229 of 403 (602476)
01-28-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2011 2:27 PM


Even worse, it shouldn't come up in a discussion on the legality of abortion. But it can fit in a discussion of the morality of it, when a person is defined as a body and a soul.
Even in that discussion, I'd ask the same question, get the same answer, and then it would become pointless to have even brought it up.
The question would be: Why is it not immoral to jerkoff, but it is immoral to destroy a zygote that is practically the same thing as sperm? If you can't tell me for sure if that sperm has a soul or if it's the zygote that has the soul, or in fact the emryo, or further down the line with the fetus, then why bring it up at all?
I don't think so; it doesn't have enough chromosomes, no?
That would be irrelevant because it has the potential to unite with another creating a zygote - and then that zygote has the potential to develop into an embryo - and that embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, yada, yada, yada. A break anywhere in that process ends the potential of the next process that follows.
A zygote only has the potential to be an embryo.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2011 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2011 4:24 PM onifre has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 230 of 403 (602480)
01-28-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2011 5:06 PM


Do you want abortion to be illegal/criminalized? Why?
It's not a simple thing. I think that laws must be an outflow of the moral views of a society.
You see this whenever there is a law change. Society started viewing the thing as right before the law was adapted to fit this. Not the other way around. Changing a law cannot somehow force the people to start seeing things as right or wrong.
So it's a tricky question. In a society where abortion isn't seen as wrong anymore, can I really want to make it illegal, knowing that ultimately it won't change anything and probably the same amount of abortions will be done, only differences being that they will be done elsewhere, or underground ?
According to me, in a perfect world, abortion would be illegal. But then again, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be need for any abortion, right ?
So for me the socially moral aspect of it is much more important then the legal aspect. If society where to change and that abortion wouldn't even be considered an option anymore because of the moral worldview of a person, then the legal change would step in and reinforce an already present perception in the society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2011 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2011 4:17 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 282 by subbie, posted 01-28-2011 7:47 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 231 of 403 (602481)
01-28-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by jar
01-28-2011 3:06 PM


Re: Evidence?
It was an example of how I could also resort to stupid question-beggin epithet. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by jar, posted 01-28-2011 3:06 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 232 of 403 (602484)
01-28-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Apothecus
01-27-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Bump For Abortion Issues
I think most people are, at least in part, concerned about things which to them are unacceptible, morally or otherwise.
I would agree, but only when they are made aware of it. For the most part, I spend my day day thinking about myself, my children, then sometimes my family, further down the list would be my friends. The further you get away from my DNA the less amount of importance I give you in my daily concerns.
Now, sure, if you told me some kid got shot in Africa by some warlord, I'd feel empathy and care. If you told me Haitians are suffering from an earthquake, I'd feel bad and donate some cash.
But, my point is that, unless you tell me, I wouldn't concern myself (or in my foul language "give a shit") about Africa, Haiti or anyone else during the course of my day.
I entirely agree with you, though, about the fact that not enough is done for single moms after the birth of an unaborted baby. I also agree with your overpopulation argument and how that relates to any unsupported objections to abortion. But like the above examples, I would argue that most people do genuinely care about unborn children, as well as what happens to them after birth. But apparently, just not enough to actually do anything about it.
I agree, but only when they're made aware of it.
Lets set up a fake example:
(A girl, lets call her Maria, is 16 years old and in highschool. She's poor, from a single parent home, and they barely have enough to feed themselves. Maria works nights after school to help feed her siblings and tries her best to get to her school work; most of the time she barely has the energy to do it. Because of that, Maria is failing in school, will probabaly never go to college and more than likely will follow in her parent's footstep.)
Now truthfully, and there are many women in the US like this, how many times a day does any pro-life person concern themselves with Maria's current living situation and struggles? zero?
How many times a day do pro-life people think about her siblings who barely eat? zero?
How many times a day do pro-life people concern themselves with Maria's mother who works 3 jobs to suport the kids she didn't abort? fucking zero!
Now, lets add to this that poor little Maria gets pregnant. She realizes the struggles she has to live with, both now and in the future if she gives birth, so, Maria decides to have an abortion.
Boom! All of a sudden every pro-life asshole has an issue with Maria's decision? All of a sudden every pro-life, self-righteous clown pretends to care for the tiny collection of cells in Maria's womb? Remember though, fuck Maria, her mother, her starving siblings and her future...but that zygote, fuck yeah, they all love that zygote. Really? Bullshit!
Can you see, at least in this (very common) example how fake, self-righteous, hypocritical and outright shameful the argument from a pro-lifer becomes?
Maria's mother didn't have an abortion, and no one made an effort to help her. Her kids go hungry, and no one made an effort to help her. Maria works nights and can't get to her school work, but no effort was made to help her.
Now Maria has to make a decision for her life and her future concerning a collection of cells in her stomach, and this is the precise moment when everyone wants to NOW pay attention to Maria and judge her? But where the fuck were they when her and her mother and her siblings needed them? Where? They were busy paying attention to their own lives. Well, go right back to doing that when she's pregnant then because their concern for her tiny zygote is self-righteous and transparent.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Apothecus, posted 01-27-2011 2:38 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by AZPaul3, posted 01-28-2011 4:30 PM onifre has replied
 Message 284 by Apothecus, posted 01-29-2011 5:34 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2011 12:10 PM onifre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10073
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 233 of 403 (602487)
01-28-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by slevesque
01-27-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Evidence?
So, if you are in favor that abortion be legal, you are pro-abortion.
If you support free speech does that make you pro-flagburning?
The questions surrounding the availability of abortion are quite different from the questions as to whether someone should get an abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2011 3:48 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:14 PM Taq has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 234 of 403 (602489)
01-28-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Theodoric
01-28-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Evidence?
What you "know" means nothing. Show us evidence that this is true. Show us evidence that the Quebec government wants "to kill babies". You make assertion after assertion but are woefully lacking in presenting any evidence for these assertions.
I am not obliged to prove anything to you. I call it as I see it, I live here, this is my personnal view on how it happens here, and you are free to believe me or not.
The Quebec government pays between 5000 and 10 000 dollars to send late abortion cases to Kansas. Not because it is illegal here, but because we don't havethe equipment for these late abortions. This some one time unique case; each and every woman who wants a late-abortion will have this service offered to her. (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/041015-4.htm)
If you really think these kind of ressources are deployed for a young woman who wants to keep the child instead, but can't because of financial reasons, then you are fooling yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2011 3:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 235 of 403 (602490)
01-28-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taq
01-28-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Evidence?
If you support free speech does that make you pro-flagburning?
No, but I guess it makes you pro-freespeech.
I'm giving you the freakin' definition of the word. You're not humpty-dumpty and words don't mean what you want them to mean. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but there is nothing pejorative about calling someone pro-abortion.
If you are for abortions to be legal. Then you are pro-abortion. It's as simple as that. There is nothing in calling someone pro-abortion that mean they rejoice at the idea of abortions. It simply means that person thinks it should be legal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 01-28-2011 4:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ringo, posted 01-28-2011 4:27 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 241 by jar, posted 01-28-2011 4:33 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 01-28-2011 5:44 PM slevesque has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 403 (602491)
01-28-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by slevesque
01-28-2011 3:41 PM


It's not a simple thing. I think that laws must be an outflow of the moral views of a society.
I don't think they must be. The speed limit in Missouri is 70 mph and in Illinois its 65 mph. I don't think that has anything to do with a difference in the moral views of the societies.
You see this whenever there is a law change. Society started viewing the thing as right before the law was adapted to fit this.
The "lag time" is also simply a result of the necessary judicial process(es).
Not the other way around.
Laws need to be made for a reason so it makes sense that they would follow rather than lead.
Changing a law cannot somehow force the people to start seeing things as right or wrong.
Agreed.
So it's a tricky question. In a society where abortion isn't seen as wrong anymore, can I really want to make it illegal, knowing that ultimately it won't change anything and probably the same amount of abortions will be done, only differences being that they will be done elsewhere, or underground ?
So you think it should remain legal, then? I do even though I don't consider it a moral thing to do (although I suppose it could be in some situations).
So for me the socially moral aspect of it is much more important then the legal aspect.
Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 237 of 403 (602492)
01-28-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by slevesque
01-28-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Evidence?
slevesque writes:
I know how society and the government approaches this issue, and I know that someone wanting to bring to terms an unwanted pregnancy will have trouble getting the ressources needed.
You're a part of society. Your approach is part of the problem. You're one of those who is failing to provide the resources.
Maybe your Christian community needs to focus some of its efforts closer to home. Instead of complaining about the choices that women make, maybe you need to make the alternatives more attractive.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 3:04 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:35 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 403 (602497)
01-28-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by onifre
01-28-2011 3:24 PM


That would be irrelevant because it has the potential to unite with another creating a zygote - and then that zygote has the potential to develop into an embryo - and that embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, yada, yada, yada. A break anywhere in that process ends the potential of the next process that follows.
I'm still seeing a difference between the potential of a diploid to develop into a person and the lack of the potential of a haploid to without another haploid to join with.
Why is it not immoral to jerkoff, but it is immoral to destroy a zygote that is practically the same thing as sperm?
Because they're not practically the same thing.
If you can't tell me for sure if that sperm has a soul or if it's the zygote that has the soul, or in fact the emryo, or further down the line with the fetus, then why bring it up at all?
If that's the person's reason for holding their particular moral position, and they're comfortable without being able to pinpoint the emergence of the soul, then that's gonna be their reason regardless.
It doesn't really matter that you don't like it
That's different from an argument about the legality because a legal argument requires more justification than a moral one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 3:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 239 of 403 (602498)
01-28-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by slevesque
01-28-2011 4:14 PM


Re: Evidence?
slevesque writes:
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but there is nothing pejorative about calling someone pro-abortion.
If you call somebody something they don't want to be called, that is perjorative (as well as rude).
Despite your handy-dandy dictionary definition, I for one am decidedly NOT pro-abortion. I am decidedly ANTI-abortion. But I'm also anti-telling-people-how-to-run-their-lives.
I'm pro-keeping-my-nose-out-of-other-people's-business. I'm pro-choice.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:14 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:47 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8552
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 240 of 403 (602500)
01-28-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by onifre
01-28-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Bump For Abortion Issues
Oni,
Wow.
You got to me.
Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 3:59 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by onifre, posted 01-28-2011 5:12 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024