IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

OrnotBitwise said:
If that were the argument then, yes, it would be worthless. That ain't it though.

The stridency and emotional violence of many male anti-abortionists is hypocritical in the extreme.
Click to expand...
It is equally emotive to say, 'You are a man, therefore your opinion on this matters not.'

And as I said, it is equivalent to the position, 'If you are not black then you could never represent a black person.' It just doesn't logically apply. A man can understand and take a position on abortion, just as he can on almost any other topic in law attempting to dismiss their opinion solely because they have a different anatomy isn't logical argument at all.
 
Damocles said:
It is equally emotive to say, 'You are a man, therefore your opinion on this matters not.'

And as I said, it is equivalent to the position, 'If you are not black then you could never represent a black person.' It just doesn't logically apply. A man can understand and take a position on abortion, just as he can on almost any other topic in law attempting to dismiss their opinion solely because they have a different anatomy isn't logical argument at all.
Click to expand...


I wonder if there's a parallel universe, where the United States is a matriarchy, and decisions are made largely by women politicians and legislators....and what the male reaction would be, if the women decided to legislate against male anatomy and cut off the viagra pills.


I'd probably be yelling for them to get their politics and ideology off my body. ;)
 
Damocles said:
It is equally emotive to say, 'You are a man, therefore your opinion on this matters not.'

And as I said, it is equivalent to the position, 'If you are not black then you could never represent a black person.' It just doesn't logically apply. A man can understand and take a position on abortion, just as he can on almost any other topic in law attempting to dismiss their opinion solely because they have a different anatomy isn't logical argument at all.
Click to expand...
The man's opinion has less weight with me, however, because he will never bear the consequences of those beliefs. A rich person's opinions about social welfare programs similarly have less weight in my book.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The man's opinion has less weight with me, however, because he will never bear the consequences of those beliefs. A rich person's opinions about social welfare programs similarly have less weight in my book.
Click to expand...
Less weight is different than stating their opinion doesn't matter at all. I have read that statement above. I am commenting on that.

Also, you assume he would never bear the responsibility for that, you do not know. He will never bear the physical, but certainly emotional and monetary as well as simply being a parent are certainly responsibilities that most men step up to in my experience.

There is more than just the woman to think about. I give less weight to arguments that do not include all parties and suggest that somehow the woman and her docter are in a vacuum and therefore we cannot have an opinion on whether we should kill a burgeoning life. It is the reason that I take the position that I do, and will continue doing so. The woman should have the right to do what she wishes with her body, but we should not have the right to simply deny life to another because of it. We should attempt to save the life rather than to end it.
 
Most pro-life advocates do not have their opinion because they believe a mans is more important but rather they recognize that the unborn's concern carry weight.

When people make this a purely woman's issue it is becaue they see the concerns of the unborn as irrelevant.

If you see the unborn as a non entity then it it easy to see this as a womans rights issue because it is soley concerned with women.

However if you see it as a struggle between the interests of two parties you are more likely to see it as a human rights issue.

This is not to say that many pro-life advocates don't have anti-feminist tendencies or merely profess their beliefs out of religious dogma.

However there is great variance within the camps.
 
Most pro-life advocates do not have their opinion because they believe a mans is more important but rather they recognize that the unborn's concern carry weight. ...When people make this a purely woman's issue it is becaue they see the concerns of the unborn as irrelevant.

Not only that, but they want you to always perceive this as such. This is why you get the "clump of cells" argument, and denial of basic biological fact. This is why you get made up words like "personhood" instead of comprehending the biological facts. It is ALL predicated on the woman retaining the rights bestowed upon her by Roe v. Wade.

Now, we get into the issue of partial birth abortion, and we see the testimony of a pro-choice RN who witnessed the procedure, we hear her tell us about the baby's arms and hands, and how it flinched in a startle reaction when the scissors are inserted in its skull, and we realize this is not a clump of cells or non-human thing that merely belongs to the host. So, a substantial number of people DO recognize this involves another human life, and they DO afford this human some level of consideration.

This begs the question, do the pro-choice people manage to hold on to their view because the human in question is not seen or heard? What would be their viewpoint, if we could see and hear the testimony from a fetus who experienced an abortion? Telling us how it was just laying around enjoying placenta, when suddenly, a metal blade began devouring it from the feet up! Or... suddenly, they were engulfed by an environment of burning acid-like solution which started to melt their skin away and eventually reduced them to liquid. If we could hear the internal screams of these humans as they were being murdered by abortion, would the world have a different view? I think they would.
 
Obviously the unborn won't remember the procedure but there is a book by a woman who survived an abortion that my wife read. You can obviously guess what her stance on the issue is.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Gianna Jessen is her name. She survived a saline abortion at 7 months.
Click to expand...

You know, I would never have an abortion at 7 months.

I don't honestly know if I could have one after first trimester, but I know I couldn't at 7 months.

First trimester to me though, it's just meaningless. Say, the condom breaks and you get pregnant, ok. And the condom doesn't break and you don't. Whatever. To me, at that stage, we are talking about nothing.
 
Darla said:
You know, I would never have an abortion at 7 months.

I don't honestly know if I could have one after first trimester, but I know I couldn't at 7 months.

First trimester to me though, it's just meaningless. Say, the condom breaks and you get pregnant, ok. And the condom doesn't break and you don't. Whatever. To me, at that stage, we are talking about nothing.
Click to expand...
And the overwhelming majority of all abortions are performed before the 13th week of pregnancy.



Why do I let myself get sucked into these things? I know better. I know they never go anywhere. I know that I've not heard anything new from the anti-choice side in twenty years, at best. I know they they never listen. And yet here I am, posting on yet another abortion thread. :(
 
Darla said:
You know, I would never have an abortion at 7 months.

I don't honestly know if I could have one after first trimester, but I know I couldn't at 7 months.

First trimester to me though, it's just meaningless. Say, the condom breaks and you get pregnant, ok. And the condom doesn't break and you don't. Whatever. To me, at that stage, we are talking about nothing.
Click to expand...

Nothing but a human life.......to most folks anyways.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Why do I let myself get sucked into these things? I know better. I know they never go anywhere. I know that I've not heard anything new from the anti-choice side in twenty years, at best. I know they they never listen. And yet here I am, posting on yet another abortion thread. :(
Click to expand...

Kind of the way I feel Ornot.....but from the other side of the aisle.:)
 
leaningright said:
Nothing but a human life.......to most folks anyways.
Click to expand...
Both of your assertions are highly debatable. Which is exactly why this issue never, ever goes away.

Most people want to leave it a matter of individual conscience in the first trimester. That much has been shown many times.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Both of your assertions are highly debatable. Which is exactly why this issue never, ever goes away.

Most people want to leave it a matter of individual conscience in the first trimester. That much has been shown many times.
Click to expand...

I might agree with you that, unfortunately, most people want to leave it a matter of individaul conscience but I stand by my assertion that most people think it is a human life.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

And how they can justify both positions at once is beyond me but it seems to be the way it is.
 
You know, I would never have an abortion at 7 months.

I don't honestly know if I could have one after first trimester, but I know I couldn't at 7 months.

First trimester to me though, it's just meaningless. Say, the condom breaks and you get pregnant, ok. And the condom doesn't break and you don't. Whatever. To me, at that stage, we are talking about nothing.

If we could just get rid of abortions after 20 weeks this wouldn't be as big issue for me anymore.
 
leaningright said:
I might agree with you that, unfortunately, most people want to leave it a matter of individaul conscience but I stand by my assertion that most people think it is a human life.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

And how they can justify both positions at once is beyond me but it seems to be the way it is.
Click to expand...
They justify it by admitting the possibility that they might be wrong and that others might not share their beliefs.

Main Entry:hu·mil·i·ty
Pronunciation: \hyü-ˈmi-lə-tē, yü-\
Function:noun
Date:14th century

: the quality or state of being humble


Main Entry:1hum·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈhəm-bəl also chiefly Southern ˈəm-\
Function:adjective
Inflected Form(s):hum·bler \-b(ə-)lər\; hum·blest \-b(ə-)ləst\
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin humilis low, humble, from humus earth; akin to Greek chthōn earth, chamai on the ground
Date:13th century

1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive




:pke:
 
And how they can justify both positions at once is beyond me but it seems to be the way it is.

They justify it by denying science and biology and making up words like "personhood" or establishing arbitrary points where it "becomes" what it already was. Since we don't have to deal with the protests from aborted fetuses, we can't... to use a Bill Clinton term... feel their pain. We can go on with this ignorance of fact, and pretend that these humans aren't really human, or they lack the value of a human who can articulate thought and speak out against injustice, it doesn't make it okay, and it will never make it okay. No doubt, if black people were deaf-mutes, we would probably still be excusing slavery. It's the same thing. You have a group (the unborn) who have no political ability to speak for themselves here, and the establishment who wants to keep things as they are, denying their rights of human dignity.
 
Dixie, cease your ranting for a moment and read what leaningright said. He's talking about those who agree with him (and you) that a fetus is an "unborn human being" yet also believe that the question should remain a matter of individual conscience early in pregnancy. This is a very large group of people, in case you hadn't noticed.

In other words, there are a lot of people who believe as you do on the ethical status of a fetus yet do NOT believe in making all abortion illegal, at least not during the first trimester of pregnancy. It is this group whose beliefs he does not understand. I, on the other hand, have no trouble understanding them.

How 'bout you?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Dixie, cease your ranting for a moment and read what leaningright said. He's talking about those who agree with him (and you) that a fetus is an "unborn human being" yet also believe that the question should remain a matter of individual conscience early in pregnancy. This is a very large group of people, in case you hadn't noticed.

In other words, there are a lot of people who believe as you do on the ethical status of a fetus yet do NOT believe in making all abortion illegal, at least not during the first trimester of pregnancy. It is this group whose beliefs he does not understand. I, on the other hand, have no trouble understanding them.

How 'bout you?
Click to expand...

I'm with him, I can't understand people who believe the world is flat. When you take the logical step backward, and say a fetus is not worthy of human rights because it isn't old enough or developed enough, this same backward logic could also lead to killing anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. You are establishing an artificial criteria where it is acceptable to kill other humans. Now, is this better than being in denial of science and biology and refusing to admit a fetus is human at all? I don't know, I think one is as bad as the other for the fetus, so it really doesn't matter either way.
 
Dixie said:
I'm with him, I can't understand people who believe the world is flat. When you take the logical step backward, and say a fetus is not worthy of human rights because it isn't old enough or developed enough, this same backward logic could also lead to killing anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. You are establishing an artificial criteria where it is acceptable to kill other humans. Now, is this better than being in denial of science and biology and refusing to admit a fetus is human at all? I don't know, I think one is as bad as the other for the fetus, so it really doesn't matter either way.
Click to expand...
<*sigh*>

No, the "logical step" involved is to simply admit that one does not have access to absolute truth. To admit that one might, just possibly, be wrong. To admit that other people are not bound by one's personal convictions on all things.

These are the people who oppose abortion but are pro-choice. They're the ones who don't feel ordained by God to impose their will upon others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top