Abortion

[dmaul97]

So what do you think about it?

[Eruve]

Why are you bringing up this subject which is an emotional one and likely only to make people angry? I know what I think about it but feel it is pointless to discuss it, because most people have their minds made up and are not going to change their minds just by discussing it.

[bmilder]

Well, this is a highly controversial issue. I'll leave it open for the time being, but if it turns into a flame war it will have to be closed, obviously. Just remember to keep a civil tone while posting.

I personally believe that a woman should have a right to choose what she wants and that it's not the government's place to tell her that she can't control her own body.

I'll see if this can be discussed rationally and without insults.

[anduin]

Eruve...well said.

Ben...likewise.

[IronParrot]

NO.

Whether that is a response to the question, or merely in defiance to the existence of this thread itself, I shall leave up to your own interpretation.

[juntel]

I agree with ben.

But (well, yes, there had to be a " but" ) I admit I have a problem concerning the maximum amount of weeks into pregnancy for which abortion could be allowed.
The present legal amount of weeks is based (i think) on the maximum one can go without harming the pregnant woman.
But what if (uhhhg... " what if"'s can be such pain in the arse!) medical technology allows in the future abortions up until, say, the 8th month? Or 8 and half?

I encourage pro-choicers (like me) to debate on this.

[The One Ring]

I'm pro-choice, too. It's up to the woman what she wants to do, not the government. I think you'll find in this poll, though, that the younger half of Entmoot is liable to be more liberal than the older half, at least in general.

[anduin]

I don't think that the line is drawn between young and old, as much as it is drawn between religious beliefs.


Gee, such a heavy topic for a board created to discuss the wonderful world of make-believe. ;)

[dmaul97]

Well, I didn't mean to cause a flame, and I am pretty sure this topic would not cause one. There have probably been other controversial issues at Entmoot, but none have ever caused a flame war. A certain level of respect for other people's opinion has always been maintained.

This topic has appeared in another bb without any problems, but that was a different type of bb, so maybe I should've been more careful. I do realize the seriousness of this topic might cause people to not post here, but that is all right. I think this sort of makes Entmoot a place with well-diversified topics. What other board has so many different topics? Entmoot includes, SW, Tolkien, movies, fantasy, a place to just talk, and now, a little bit of serious discussion.

Okay, now my view on aborition....

I see that the majority of you, like the other bb I mentioned before, are pro-choice. Well, I am not, so it will be a bit more difficult for me to give reasons for my position.

Probably, the main reason why I so strongly oppose abortion is because you are basically killing life. People say that babies in the womb are not humans, but they are simply wrong. In the beginning of pregnancy, all the traits of the baby are determined. All the baby needs to do is grow into the traits. And, because it has unique traits that can never be reproduced again, killing it would be killing a distinct individual human being. Is killing a baby who was very recently born right and legal? After all, it doesn't know anything. It's only potential because it has gone through puberty and fully developed.

Also, something annoying is when people say stuff like, “What about rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger?” and some other rare case. Those are the exception, so that shouldn’t be part of the argument. When I talk about abortion, I mean the most common type.

And, no one should allow abortion because the mother might maim herself in the process of killing the baby. If the mother tries to kill a baby and maims herself, it might sound mean, but I think she deserves it. She injured herself in attempted murder.

There is no reason to kill a baby because people believe it will lead to a life of cruelty and abuse. A few years back, some prom mom person killed a baby shortly after birth. The baby would have most likely had a life abuse, but that would have been no excuse. She basically killed a human being, and abortion would be doing the same.

Another reason for abortion is because it is practical. That is the worst excuse of all. I am sure it is practical to do many things, but it is not right because it also practical to kill and steal.

Many women say they believe in the right to have a choice. They do have a choice. They can choose to remain abstinent, unless they want a baby. Sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it.

The next part might offend people, but I still included it because I thought it showed a very strong point.

Everyone here at the board had a mother and lived in the womb for several months. Obviously, your parents chose not have an abortion, but if they did, would your life be possible? No, it would not. When someone prevents your life from continuing, it is called murder. So, if your parents aborted you, would you think they murdered you? …..


I was going to make the last para the same color as backround so you would need to highlight ot read, but i didn't know how to. If one of the admins or mods want to, can you please do it for me.


post was not ment to offend anyone

also it took a while to write and didn't concentrate on proper english, so i am sure there are plenbty of grammer errors.

[juntel]

Thank you dmaul for your well detailed opinion.

Now, let me give here a partial reply.

Firstly, let me point out you misuse of the word "baby". A baby is a human that is at least born. But of course it is convenient to call a fetus a baby, since it gives abortion a more cruel face than it should. Especially when using in conjonction with the word "kill".
The pregnant woman bears an embryo, then a fetus.

Now, about your last paragraph that you think is a so strong argument. My mother (and probably most of this board's users') didn't decide not to have an abortion: she wasn't in a precarious situation, and I was wanted. So she had me. Abortion presents itself as a choice in grave and tense situations, not as a matter-of-fact-practical way as you try to describe.
My being alive cannot be an argument against the right of abortion by choice.

You go on saying: "When someone prevents your life from continuing, it is called murder." Please remember that murder implies two things: malicious intent and illegal killing. The woman who decides to have an abortion isn't malicious: she strongly feels incapable of going through with the pregnancy at this point in her life, for various reasons. And it is not illegal.

And about your claim that sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it. The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano? The feet are made for walking, so one shouldn't dance? You see, the function of sex is reproduction, as the function of the hand and the foot is to hold,etc... and walk respectively. But their usage can be more varied, and so is for sex. We human beings can express ourselves in so many creative forms that the function of our organs are transcended, and we do -oh- so much marvels with painting, singing and dancing, and... well, and the sex thing that has nothing to do with reproduction.

We are free and creative and beautifull.
Let's not be beaten down by archaic tyranical dogmas that were invented in a past when our ignorance was used against us and fear was used to shut off our songs.

But I digress...

I am quite saddened that the choice to abortion is viewed as a practical luxury. But again, this is a very good tactical choice of words on the part of the pro-lifers.

This is a subject that will forever be debated, even when we'll all be old-timers.

[emilsson]

bmilder sumed up my opinion on this matter.

[dmaul97]

You can say whatever you want about how I worded things, but abortion is still killing. Fetus, embryo, baby- it really doesn't matter because everyone who read the post knew that I ment the human inside the womb.

Are fetuses and embryos human beings???If they aren't, what are they???ALIENS???

Isn't it illegal to kill humans???

Then, why is it legal to kill humans when they're not born yet?




Also, don't try to scare me with big bad words. I have full access to a dictionary:P

[juntel]

A spermatozoid successfully fecunds an ovum.
Then there is the first division: there are now two cells.

Are these two cells a human being?
If we were able to stop further divisions at that point, would you consider this as murder?
For "killing" those two cells, what would you want the legal punishment to be? Emprisonment? Death penalty? Hearing a Charlton Heston and Ronald Reagan duet?

[Elanor]

This issue is what my American Heritage class last year called a "Culture War". Basically, there are two or more different "sides" who cannot reconcile their beliefs or come to any agreement because they have deeply held beliefs and values that are completely at odds. There is no way to fairly come to a solution that will satisfy anyone unless everyone changes to the same side.

The following is a glimpse into my "side", which is not intended to convince, offend, or argue, but to shed light on why I believe the way I do. I will state my beliefs as facts, which they are. (no relativism for me, sorry :) ) My religious beliefs are my entire life and define the meaning of my existence.

Human spirits have a pre-existence and live with God before they are born to receive a human body. The purpose of mortal life is for us to gain a body (we need a body to become like God, who has a perfect, physical, human-shaped body. The purpose of our existence is to become like God), be tested, learn, develop our potential, and have children and families. Procreation is the purpose of sex, to create bodies for spirits to live in, to bring them into this world to learn and be tested, to teach them and love them and help them along. It is not God's fault that people use this wonderful process for pleasure and persuasion, for he gave us our ability to choose so that we could learn and progress. There must be opposition in all things, but the purpose of our existence is to be happy. Even potential babies that would certainly have constant pain should be born, because every human soul has the right to life, and to make of it what they can. There is a lot of ugliness in this world, but there is infinite beauty as well, and learning experiences that spirits need to become perfect. I agree with dmaul that the woman's "choice" (excluding cases of rape, in which abortion is an acceptable option) has been made at the time of intercourse. I also believe that a fertilized egg contains the spirit of a person, and is a potential human being. This person has the right to experience mortality. If the woman would very likely die, or if there is a case of rape or incest, abortion can be considered, but it should still not be easy or convenient. The woman and other people involved should have counseling and take careful thought before this step is taken.

I hope you can look at this with an open heart and see that the motivation for this opinion is love and a religion that I cannot deny.

[juntel]

I respect your personal choice, based on your personal religion.

What bmilder (i think) put forward is that that respect should be mutual, thus implying that we should respect the pregnant woman's choice, a choice based on her beliefs, a choice protected by a law of mutual respect. You are convinced of your beliefs, but there are other opinions and beliefs.

We just can't live today in an old testament-like society where sex for pleasure is condemned by death; where a woman lying about her virginity to get married can be put to death by law.
The God of the judeo-christian bible even ordered children to be put to death, written black-on-white in that book. And those were not just foetuses, but born children, unmistakenly human beings.

So, isn't God himself a murderer?

[thrawn96]

well, I also agree pretty much with Ben, but i also overlap onto Jae's side. There are alternatives to abortion. If you have sex and do not mean to reproduce, that is why condoms were created. If you use one, you will not reproduce (unless it rips or something). But if its too late to use a condom, you can always wait for the child to be born and give it up for adoption, which was usually the alternative before abortion was created. Otherwise, I think it is the ladies choice on whether to have an abortion or not.

[anduin]

The reason there are "sides" in this issue: for and against, are for the passing of laws that would dictate what a women can do and what she cannot. The pro-life side wants the laws passed, the pro-choice side wants to prevent those laws from being enacted. The danger of passing anti-abortion laws is that women who become pregnant through rape or incest, or women whose pregnancy is threatening their lives, will not have a choice. You can't pass a law that includes one and excludes another. Sure you can say that the law can be tailored to exclude rape victims, etc., but how will that determination be made? You will have women who have decided that they want an abortion saying that they were raped, or whatever, just to get one. Furthermore, once a persons rights are taken away, there is no turning back. If it proves to be a bad law, what are the chances that the law will be reversed? Absolutely none. :(

And I'm not even going to go into the economic repercussions of passing such a law......

[bmilder]

Abortion is not going to be made illegal any time soon, probably. Currently, on the Supreme Court, 6 justices would not overturn Roe vs. Wade and 3 would. George W. Bush has promised to appoint pro-life judges and Gore pro-choice, but even if Bush is elected, he would just thin the margin in all likelihood. The official Republican platform is currently for an end to abortion, no exceptions, and even most normal pro-life people agree that there must be some exceptions.

[dmaul97]

How do you know the official republican plattform??
They know that completely outlawing abortion will make them loose votes. You seem to be trying to indirectly say that repupblicans are evil and they have absolutely no compassion for women in difficult situations to try to make ppl have a negative opinion of the republican party.

[bmilder]

I get my information from a source called CNN.com. You may have heard of it ;)

Click here (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/22/gop.abortion.reut/index.html) to read about the fight about the Republican anti abortion plank. That article is from March.

An article that states it more explicitly can be found here (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/14/campaign.wrap/index.html). It's also a CNN story, but it's a summary of political events. Scroll down until you see the heading that says "Bauer warns Bush not to choose pro-choice running mate." Here's an excerpt: Since 1976, a few years after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, the Republican platform has called for outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

(emphasis added)

Now as you see, the more moderate Republicans are at odds with the Religious Right and extreme elements of the party, but as a Republican, it seems you have to pander to the religious conservatives if you want to win your party over. (See Bush's move to the right to win the South Carolina primary.)

[juntel]

I just LOVE the show "The West Wing".
How'bout calling this "The Entmoot Wing"...

...or "The Moot Wing".

[Eruve]

The Moot Wing, I like it! En passant, Juntel es-tu francophone? J'ai remarque dans ton profil que tu demeures au Quebec... Moi, aussi, mais je suis anglo...

[juntel]

Montréalais, franco.
C'est toujours le fun de croiser un compatriote sur un board!

[dmaul97]

I think bmilder made it up:P
We all know he is capable of making websites, so this could just be made up:P

What does that mean???

Why do people like the West Wing so much?My brother watches that show every week. I saw it once, it's ok, but I don't think it's that good.

What's that French mean?

[IronParrot]

Je ne sais pas, dmaul97... je ne suis pas Quebecois, et resultement mon français n'est pas très bon. J'espère que les francophones dans Entmoot pourrais m'aider sur la langue :)

[Darth Tater]

I agree with Ben TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. Everyone should have freedom to choose, but I feel that abortion is missrepresented in this country. People say that the Embryo and fetus are not baby's or even humans, but it's just not true (in my belief system.) Our Church believes, and I firmly agree, that as soon as the sperm enters the egg a new soul is born into this world. This soul begins its path to life AS WELL AS ITS SPIRITUAL PATH inside the womb. (Now, you can already see I'm going for the religious side of the argument, but quite frankly that's what this is all about. I'll go more into that if anyone dissagrees.)
Now, some people may disagree with this, that's there right, though it really hurts me, but there's so much more to be said for pro-life. Someone spoke against the argument that we weren't aborted, but I still think it's one of the most valid ones. Just think how many lives you have touched. If you're in a stage where you think you're worthless (you're not, but it happens to the best of us) think of a good person you know that has touched so many lives. This apply's for the bad as well, they always have a chance to change, and I believe everyone has effected the course of history positively (yes, even Hitler. He brought America to eventually look at itself differently, so some good comes out of all evil.) Even think of people like Mother Teresa (sp?). Now, image if these people were aborted. Imagine them never having lived, never having been there. Imagine all the voids that everyone has filled, when people just needed a friend, or someone to be there. No one can say that ANY life is worthless, and I firmly believe removing that life before it even had a chance to touch anyone is possibly the worst form of murder EVER. If there are any parents out there, I've often heard parents tell kids when the child thinks they don't matter, etc., that without them there would be something missing in that parents life. Though I'm not a parent I really believe this is true.
Now many people say what about rape, etc. Well, possibly the nicest child I know is adopted. As a matter of fact I know a number of adopted children, all of whose mothers were in possitions to abort them. These people are so wonderfull, and have such wonderfull parents. Some people say that baby's put up for adoption sometimes never are. This is true, and it's very sad. I know a number of people who've wanted to adopt at times and couldn't, despite over crowded orphinages (sp). The system is corrupt, but it could be fixed, it should be fixed. I know it can be made so that, even if ALL the children who are aborted were instead put up for adoption (I pray to God this happens) there would be a parent for each of them.
In short, everyone is a wonderfull human being, an individual. Taking them from the earth so early in life is such a sad, horrible thing. It really hurts me, I can't explain it in words. I'll talk more later, this is a topic I feel very passionately about, but I'm trying to stay calm, don't want an admin flamming ;)

[IronParrot]

I'm to an extent pro-choice, BUT I am against abortion as it stands today because of the methods used... I don't have any links available right now but I've read all sorts of medical documents detailing the processes, and they are simply sickening. Plus, none of them are foolproof against preventing the death of the mother in the process.

It's the current impracticality that shifts my stance on abortion to a definite "NO."

[dmaul97]

This is unprecedented. I actually agree with Tater.

No Pro-Choice person can deny that the sperm and egg combined together is a human being. And, they can not deny that the process of abortion will kill the little human.(I used the word human because i was unaware of what term fit)

Think about what it's doing. You can't just kill someone because he/she can be dificult. Do you just kill your child because you lost a job and don't have a lot of money. Just because you can't see or hear it doesn't mean it's not alive. Abortions kill humans at their most vulnurable moment.

[The One Ring]

Well, I don't know about the other pro-choice people, but like I said, I'm not entirely for abortion. I don't deny that a fetus is an unborn human, and I'm not saying every baby liable to have a hard or poor childhood should be aborted. If you note the second word in the term pro-choice, you will see that it is "choice". My stance is that it is up to the mother. Are you going to walk up to an unhappy, teenage, hard-pressed mother, and tell her she has to keep her baby against her wishes? Of course, if she does want to keep it, are you going to tell her she has to abort? Nobody should be forced into a choice they don't want to make.

Now, about the killing of humans. I most certainly agree that an unborn baby is a human, and at a certain point I would no longer condone abortion. I'm no biological expert, but I think about fourth month, which is, I think, as far as Roe vs. Wade lets it go, is about the limit.

[Eruve]

First to clarify the French, it had nothing to do with the topic. I just asked Juntel if s/he was a native French speaker, since I noticed in his/her profile that s/he comes form Quebec. Juntel replied that s/he is from Montreal and is indeed a French speaker... BTW, IP if you want help with your French, just ask, I studied to be a French teacher. (Didn't actually teach for very long, but that's another matter entirely.)

I migh as well tell you my stance. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion. I believe that a fetus is human and wouldn't be able to kill one. BUT I believe that this is a personal decision that every woman must make for herself. I don't feel I have the right to make the choice for someone else, and I don't feel the government has the right to make the choice for anyone.

This is sort of off topic, but to Elanor and Tater, since in your religious beliefs, you state that the soul enters at conception, what happens to a fetus who is miscarried? What would your religion say about that particular soul? Just curious.

[bmilder]

Jae, although it doesn't impact the topic too much, I'm sure you're joking about me finding some way to have a website of mine be stored at cnn.com ;) (And if you actually view the articles, you'll see they're quite lengthy, and I don't have time to fabricate that kind of stuff :p )

I think TOR did a good job of explaining pro- choice. Republicans want to take away the choice. No matter what laws are passed, women are still going to have abortions. But it makes much more sense for them to legally get them in a clean doctor's office than on the street illegally. A law banning all abortions would fail just like Prohibition failed. But this time, instead of people going to illegal establishments to get drunk and have fun, women would have to circumvent the law and put their lives in danger by using an unqualified doctor in some remote area.

[IronParrot]

I agree with you Ben, but the fact remains that nobody is really qualified to perform an abortion, when it gets down to it...

[juntel]

Firstly, Eruve, I'm a *he*.

Now for those arguing from a religious point of view, I may respect to some extent your religiosity, but I just can't stand *christians* waving their bible in the air while these same scriptures very well describe their god as a slaugtherer; yes, this is from the old testament, and the *new* one is smoother, but then what? is it that the old god should be pardonned for his sins?

About this sentence: "No Pro-Choice person can deny that the sperm and egg combined together is a human being." Well, there lies all the question, isn't it? What is a human being? At what stage on conception does the fertilized egg becomes that sentient human individual? Who decides what is a sentient human individual who has rights?

One may decide to believe that this sentient human individual appears right at time zero of fertilization. Ok. But to want to impose that belief on a society, one must furnish some argument or proof of what is believed. Something substantial must be put forward so that people could righteously say to a 13 years old pregnant teenager that she will be a murderer if she aborts. It is one thing that your belief affects your life, but to make it affect others, especially regarding criminal law, the cloudy nature of belief must be made more down to earth. It must be backed up by clear proofs. It is to the accusers to prove the guilt of the accused in our society.

I am not among those that believe that a foetus is a human being only at birth; and as stated in my first post in this thread, I don't yet know the answer as to when exactly a foetus is a human being deserving full rights under the law.
But nobody yet has convinced me that a fertilized human egg, a single cell, is a human being, sentient and deserving protection as any human being.
After a few divisions, that cell can be artificially forced to divide so as to produce twins: so at fertilization, there is no individual as such. (For the religiously inclined, if the fertilized egg has a soul, and later the embryo divides to produce two embryos, so possible real twins, does the soul divide in two souls?...)
Some will also put forward that the foetus can react to stimuli, or even that some aborted foetuses emitted some *cry of pain* as they were aborted. Hey, I don't deny there is an entity there, something growing, evolving, reacting to the environment. Someone who is pro-choice doesn't believe there is only a piece of meat in there! But to qualify that this entity is a human being is a step that one must somehow prove.

But here's the itch: what would make any proof valid? A proof is not independant of a system of belief (ie some sort of *language*), in which it must live. So it is my belief that this question will never really be solved: it will only be decided, as some sort of dogma. Dogma from the pro-life. Or dogma from the pro-choice.

Basically, pro-lifers belive (correct me if i'm wrong) that humanness is inherent to the conceived entity, it is there right at the beginning.
Pro-choicers believe that humanness comes slowly as the entity grows and evolves in the womb, and that at a not well-known instance, has enough of this *humanness* to be protected by law.

The pro-lifers' certainty is backed (in most cases it seems) by scriptures, traditions, and of course good will (mostly i hope).
Pro-choicers' certainty can in the end only be vague; for it is the nature of freedom of choice to allow open doors. Where there is freedom of choice, there are many choices, many opinions to listen to; and even when the choice is made, doubts may survive.

To have choices is to take the risk of having doubts and regrets.

To have choices is to live free.

Let's not be afraid or ashamed to have doubts.

For we are free.

For now...

[Fat middle]

i think Tater has explained quite well my opinion on this topic, and juntel has resumed one of the very central points of this eternal discussion: if you belief there´s a human life since conception you´ll never understand somebody could have right to finish that life.

i think it isn´t only a matter of religious beliefs; a lot of people without defined religiousness agree that no human should decide to finish the life of another. every human is unique, his life is above the power of the others.

that´s the problem of this topic. we, pro-lifers, usually use words as "kill" or "murder", cuz we believe there´s a human life inside the mother´s womb. pro-choicers cannot bear with those terms cuz they don´t agree there´s a human life. since i also belief both sides are good willing, so i often encourage other pro-lifers not to use hard words against the mother nor saying "abortion is a murder". we´ll never agree, so we must bear it as well as we can.

having a child in "penurious circumstances" is often a very heroic decission and my opinion is that heroism isn´t exigible to everybody (call me pusillanimous if you want), but aborting is no way an easy take: not only for the surgical operation and its possible bad effects but for the psychic effects. abortion, though a free choice, is often a very traumatic choice.

i admit that pro-lifers are partially responsible of the traumatic consciousness of aborting, but they (we) aren´t 100% responsable: there´s something in thed nature of aborting that makes it traumatic. i guess a woman that firmly believes the embryo isn´t a human being won´t have traumatic regrets after aborting.

i think i can understand pro-choicers arguments and i respect them. several of you have agree about "pro-lifers shouldn´t abort but they should allow pro-choicers to take their free decision". Ben has called that the Democrat point of view. the problem for us pro-lifers is who should take such a decision. the mother? the embryo? the whole society? as i said, i believe no human has power over other human lifes so i don´t think the mother should take that choice. the society? perhaps those who are pro death penalty would support this option. i cannot.

so, although i can understand pro-choice view and i try to respect his conscience, if i could i´d pass a law to prevent abortion. pro-choicers would understand it´s not intolerance what makes me think so: it´s only that i think both lifes of the mother and of the embryo have the same dignity and none of them should decide about the life of the other.

... uhh that has been too long. now i don´t expect anybody will be able to read all that attentively :p

[juntel]

I remember seeing a tv movie, with andy garcia, called Swing Vote, dealing with abortion and the US Supreme Court.

You can find the details here (http://allmovie.com/cg/x.dll?p=avg&sql=A179832).

I found it very good. I don't know if it's available on video in clubs. Both sides are treated, and although it ends leaning on the liberal side, the *pill* is hard to swallow for both sides. Nice movie. A bit overacting by garcia though.

[Darth Tater]

Well, I promissed more, so here it is.

You have to realize all my views are based on my belief system, everyone's are. The belief system I have is categorized as a religion, but that is no reason to be prejudice about it, it is really not very different then anyone elses, because ultimately I believe what I see in my heart to be true.
In our Church we always pray for the souls of all aborted babies. I personally believe that any child who dies before having a chance to enter the world goes immediately into God's arms. I do not knwo what the Churche's view on this is, but I will try to find out. I want you to know that I am really reading the pro-choice posts and taking them to heart, thinking about them and reavaluating my own beliefs. I can tell you that they have not changesd, and though I doubt they will I am open. I ask everyone to please do this, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. This is what I would like everyone to think about: As I said before, I just imagine what it would be like if I or someone important to me were aborted. There's such a void that I know would be there. Tell me, do you know what I'm saying about the void? Cause I know I'd feel it, sometimes I do feel a void and I think "could someone have been there to fill it?" This really breaks my heart, so I'm gonna end this post here before I get to emotional.

[juntel]

As I said in post before, I do believe there is good will behind the pro-lifers stand on abortion. But for those among them who base themselves on religious grounds, I just can't ignore that their openeness can only be limited, for to be pro-choice would deny solid religious dogmas about the nature and goals of human life; thus, accepting the idea of the right to choose abortion may be tantamount to denying one's religion, or at least generate a great deal of stress among the community in which one lives.

As for asking oneself what one would feel thinking about if a loved one would have been aborted, well, the feeling one may have is no different as for asking what one would feel if that person was killed. It is giving a foetus the same feelings, experiences, personnality and sentience that a grown adult has. So this exercise is based no less than on taking as a given fact the idea that the foetus has as much rights as a grown adult. But this is exactly what the whole question is about. It's like taking the conclusion as the premise.

Now if I try to think about a loved one, and what my life would be if she/he hadn't been born, I may feel moody at first. But then I realize this feeling has more to do with an ingrained false sense of fatality, that only that person could be so important in my life, that it was written in the stars!.
Of course I don't believe so, after some thought. Had that person not been born, someone could have filled her/his shoes ( but this is something utterly impossible to know!, simply because that person is after all alive! An imponderable situation) and I wouldn't be hurt by her/his absence since that person doesn't exist (ie didn't grow into a human being).
In thinking about the foetus that this adult person was, and that the foetus was destroyed, I would be wrong to feel that it was the adult that was destroyed. Yes, the foetus didn't have the "chance" to grow into the adult, but then you wouldn't know the adult (it doesn't exist), so, no void. This conclusion is as valuable as the exercise for which it is an answer.

[dmaul97]

wow, I never knew Juntel was a he...

Just like when I used to think anduin was a he.


But for those among them who base themselves on religious grounds, I just can't ignore that their openeness can only be limited,..Juntel
I don't think anyone here said they were right because their religons said so. It seems that both sides can understand the others, but considers their opinion more right.
Just curious, what religion are you, if any??
you don't need to respond

I made a really long post about why God didn't sin in the process of killing people in the old testament.
Unforantately, I hit a wrong button on tehkeyboard and it was deleted.:(


Juntel, you have to cut down on Vocab words.:P

[juntel]

1) Religion? None. Agnostic (not atheist per se).

2) Do as I do when I want to make a long post: compose it in Notepad, then paste it in reply box; that way you are safe.

3) Two individuals made religion strongly a central point for their opinions, if not three.

4) I don't expect you to believe that your god sinned by having people (including suckling babies) killed in the o.e. I guess it has every right. Like a child crushing ants in a garden.

5) Keep up and learn the vocabulary. I'm french canadian, english is my second language, and I learned it. It is very helpfull; it is not there to impress, it is there to make more precise statements.
When I was young and reading Asimov and other authors with technical words, and later reading Tolkien, I was put face to face with tough words, and when I captured their meaning, the thoughts expressed by these authors seamed clearer than if they would have used many more simpler words.
I won't simplify my vocab at the cost of making ambiguous and cloudy statements.
Get used to it, my vocabulary is simple compared to what's out there in real life.

[Darth Tater]

I'd like to clear up something juntel touched on earlier. Being against pro-choice is not, in my belief system, the same as being against freedom of religion. You see, it all comes back to what we believe. To me killing the foetus is the same as murder, so of course I want it outlawed, just as I don't want murder to be legal. Is being against murder being against a democratic society? No. However, not everyone here considers abortion murder, which is why the dissagreement arises.
Also, it was stated that the foetus is not the person that it groes into (not in those exact words, but that was the message.) This is simply illogical, i'm not trying to flame, it just is. How could it be that they were a different person? And when do you believe that the life enters them? It is only logical that life and (wether you believe in it or not) the soul are in the foetus.

[Eruve]

I don't know if I'm speaking for the person you were addressing or not, Tater, but I think that perhaps what was meant by being a different person is that life experience changes who you are. What you're exposed to in life, the way you're brought up, the people you meet, the books you read... All that goes into shaping you. When you're born, you're basically an empty slate. There are some things about you that cannot be changed and others that can. Psychologists have, in the past, taken sets of identical twins and separated them at birth. They did this to try to determine whether a given characteristic was born in a person or came about through outside influences. Not everything about you is inborn. Take your religion for example. If you had been born to, say, Hindu parents you you would not have the same belief system as you would had you been born to an Islamic family. If I look back on my life, I can see changes in things I believe over the past 10 years and certainly over the past 20. So I don't see how it's illogical to say the fetus is not the person it grows into. Certain things are there from the start, but not everything.

[bmilder]

Also, one religion's set of moral codes should not necessarily be the set of legal codes in a country like this where we have freedom of religion. What is immoral in one religion is moral in another. Why should the Judeo-Christian values be legislated while Hindu or Islamic beliefs are not? I don't think many of you would be too pleased if Islamic leaders came into power in the United States and passed laws about their moral beliefs, such as having women be covered from head to toe, and yet some of you would be perfectly willing to impose your moral and religious beliefs on others. Granted, there are some morals that are held universally, but this particular one is in dispute. The righteousness of such behavior is obvious to them but might seem ludicrous to you, just as the immorality of abortion and other things seems obvious to some based on religion. But some people's religion should not really be the guide for laws, given that there are so many religions in this country.

[juntel]

"it was stated that the foetus is not the person that it grows into"
I think that the foetus is not a person, period. It is of course, in my opinion, an unprovable statement, and so is its counterpart. But the burden of the proof is on the accusers (those who would accuse women who get an abortion that they are murderers). Also about the foetus being a person, in a previous post above I did mention about twining an embryo; if after fertilization an embryo can be forced into producing twins, then is the fertilized egg a person, two persons, four...? One soul, two souls, four...?

"It is only logical that life and (wether you believe in it or not) the soul are in the foetus."
If you use "logical" in the proper sense, then give me your arguments; stating something is not enough.
If you use "logical" as in "making sense", then I must say you are somewhat right; as thinking the earth was flat was also making sense a few centuries ago. You see, "making sense" depends much on one's own beliefs, wheter religious beliefs or not. When I say to someone: "Hey, that makes sense!", I usually mean "Right now, what you say seems to be right, but I'll have to think about it further to form a better opinion about it." !!!! Ok, maybe that's not what you mean when you say "it makes sense", but I just wanted to underline the nuance.

"(wether you believe in it or not)) the soul [is] in the foetus."
Again, that is taking the conclusion as the premise. We are in a situation (and in a country, and countries) where people have different beliefs (religious or not); should a belief trample over all the other beliefs by law, or should people live their lives with their beliefs within their communities, not imposing their personnal views on other people's lives?

[Darth Tater]

I mean logical in both senses. What you are saying is the the foetus somehow becomes something else. Think about it, it's completely illogical. The foetus and the person are the same being, simply in different stages of life. There's no way around it. Also, some people obviously think religious belief should stay out of this debate. I dissagree, since this is based on everyone's belief system, whether organized religion or more free thinking. But, since this idea has come about, I'd like to point out that science has proved that a child can be sustained outside of the womb earlier then the time at which they say it is too late to have an abortion. To me this makes it obvious that it is murder. Now, I don't want to be offensive to or take upon myself the duty to damn a woman who has an abortion. This is obviously not my place or right. I believe it is wrong, but everyone sins, it is part of human nature.

[dmaul97]

If the fetus is not a person, what is it???dog??

atheist, agnostic?what's the difference???

how long have been speaking english?

[Eruve]

No, a fetus is a fetus. Do you say a caterpillar is a butterfly? Of course not. It's just on it's way to being a butterfly. In the same, way some people see the fetus as a being on its way to becoming human. Obviously you and Tater do not believe this, but others do.

There is a difference between atheist and agnostic. An atheist believes that there's no such thing as God. An agnostic just doesn't feel there's proof that God exists without denying the possibility God may exist.

[juntel]

"atheist, agnostic?what's the difference???"
Look it up.

"how long have been speaking english?"
More than 20 years, learning everyday (as you are, as we all are, even in our own language).

"If the [foetus] is not a person, what is it???dog??"
The human foetus is a human foetus, at its particular stage of development, no more no less; at what point it becomes human is part of the debate. Look at one of my previous post in this thread and read carefully on my opinion on this.

"some people obviously think religious belief should stay out of this debate"
I don't think it should stay out; I do think it waters down your argument. It is one thing to be inspired by your religion to emit an opinion; it is another thing to use it as the main ingredient to force an opinion by law on those of other beliefs. It's the basis of separation of church(es) and State; you base anti-choice laws on religious dogmas, and you remove that separation.
So if you choose to use your scriptures to sustain your opinion, be prepared to a vigorous defense. You put yourselves in that situation (in this thread, and more generally in the national debate). Don't blame the people that are aiming at your weaker points.

"science has proved that a child can be sustained outside of the womb earlier then the time at which they say it is too late to have an abortion. To me this makes it obvious that it is murder"
(i guess you meant "not too late")
Then, there is fertilization in vitro, and ultimately science may find a way to completely grow the foetus outside a human's womb. I guess that for you and others that will mean that even destroying the first cells of a fertilized egg will be an act of murder, fully punishable under the law. Obviously.
That a late stage foetus can be taken out (mostly always in extreme situations) and maintained in life is a good point, the first in a long time. If you go see my first post in this thread, you will see that the subject on when abortion would be permissible isn't a easy topic even among pro-choicers.
The main difference between the two pro- sides is when. Pro-life says never, whereas pro-choice says, well, as the law says.
I do not think that if science could maintain in life a 1 month foetus (and we're far from that!) that that foetus should have the rights of a person, because I don't believe it is a person at that point (although, as I will always say, this is an unprovable statement, for or against). Then at what month should it have those rights? That I don't know. And this is part of the debate. A debate that may never end.
But to go to the point of calling a murderer a woman who takes, say, the RU-148 pill to abort a few days old embryo, that is going way too far in my opinion.


(I do hope you both like this exchange; otherwise there's no point on going on)

[anduin]

Hmm....this is the first time I have even thought about entering the debate....some of the things that your have brought up juntel, I find interesting...we'll see if it is enough to draw me in.

[Darth Tater]

juntel: "...because I don't believe it is a person at that point (although, as I will always say, this is an unprovable statement, for or against)"

What you say is very true, I doubt science will ever prove it, though for me my religious belief is enough. However, I understand that it is not for many people. So I have to take the logical next step and say if you don't know when it becomes a person, you are obviously taking the risk of killing someone when you abort. Is this really a risk you are willing to take?
As for birth control pills, I know many religions are against them, but I really don't have a position on the matter yet.

[juntel]

Good point. But...
...as I have stated elsewhere, I am uncertain at what point the foetus becomes a human individual with full rigths, although this uncertainty is not there for the fertilized egg for example, it's not there for the embryo stage, etc... Beyond where the "etc..." goes is for debate (within society and within oneself). That the foetus can react, has eyes, etc... is not a sign of personhood, even though a sign of life.
And that is my personnal take on it, my personal doubts: I will not impose them on a woman who wants to abort; she has her own beliefs and decisions to make. As a man, I fortunately do not have to "take the risk", but will not be so arrogant ever to call murderer a woman who goes through a willfull abortion.
Ain't easy being a woman, especially when some men out there are not willing to take responsabilities... And being alone to raise a child is one of the reasons some women have abortion.

As I have stated in a previous post (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessageR ange?topicID=347.topic&index=32) in this thread, we who do not base ourselves on religion and on an "omnipotent" and "omniscient" god(s) or goddess(es) to form our opinions, we will never have a 100% sure and certain position on the whole of the subject. But we shouldn't let our ultimate ignorance and uncertainty and doubt and maybe regrets stop us from making decisions.
Religious people from many religion have clear-cut opinions on tough subjects, but I do not think this is an advantage: I do think religious "certainty" is a prison for the mind (and the body, especially on the subject of abortion).

We who do not base ourselves on religious certainty to make and brake our opinions think we are free.
A freedom we are condemned to.

[anduin]

Bringing this to the top to purify the the election thread.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Indeed.

Just wanted to give my opinion now.

Ok, I consider myself to be pro-choice. I think that each and every woman has the right to abide by her moral convictions and decide by herself what is right and what is not.

Anyway, I think a foetus is nothing human as long as the brain activity is near zero. Some may argue that as soon as it is conceived, God gives it a soul and bla bla bla. This is merely belief. You have the right to believe this, but if you are still a intelligent being, you can't deny other's the right NOT to believe it. So you can't have everyone abide by your believes and thus can't keep a law that forbid abortion.

Sure there will always be abusers. Some women that don't use any contraception tools and use abortion when they get pregnant. There is abusers with EVERYTHING anyway! You can't just always think of what people will do to abuse, or you'll never progress toward a happier country.

Another point is that I've seen lives destroyed by young pregnancy. What do you do if you can't raise the child because you haven't enough money to feed him? This is hard, as a lone mother can sink well below the poverty line. Most of the times that a 18 years old gets pregnant, the father doesn't stay with her. Pro-life will say: give the baby to adoption! Have you ever thought of what it must be to bear the baby 9 long month, developping a eternal, phenomenal emotionnal link to this baby just to give it away after that? This is incredible emotionnal pain for the mother. Most of the time she'll have a burnout just to give her child away to adoption.

But then, I have a cousin that 19 and is pregnant and one of my friend that is 20 years old and have a 7 months old baby. They are happy, but they made their choice to keep it, even thought the birth was far from planified.

Don't get me wrong. I think that it's every women's choice. So I'm pro-choice. But, would I have to do the choice myself, I would be pro-life. I would keep the child. But then, I'm a man, so i won't happen to me :p . But if my girlfriend (1:cool: gets pregnant, I'll strongly suggest that she keeps it, for I'm pro-life for this matter. But in the end, it would be her choice and I'd have to live with it.

Pure black or white is really rare in nature. Most things are a shade of gray. Just remember that.

Shan

[Gilthalion]

Impossible!

From my own religious experience...

www.fbnm.org (http://www.fbnm.org)

...I must say that I'm Pro Life. But without my religious experience, a Pro Choice person, particularly one who does not know God, will not quite understand precisely how we feel and think (two different things!) about Abortion.

Here in the USA I hope that the Supreme Court will move in the direction of States Rights, in other words, allowing each State of the People to choose for itself.

You can't please any one with this one. And my King commands that we not use might or power to accomplish our Quest.

I hope to persuade everyone to give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt.

Failing that (and I will never give up!), the question of governance becomes the issue.

The least evil choice is to allow each region to enact its own legislation on matters of this nature. I cannot stop the citizens of New York if they are bent upon this present course. But do they have to drag Alabama with them?

In the end, as with all such things, I perceive a Spirit of malice behind it.

(The little hobbit closes his eyes tightly, whispers fervently, sighs, and pours himself the glass of Beaujolais he promised himself in the THIS IS DISGUSTING thread.)
pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjami...=578.topic (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessage? topicID=578.topic)

[juntel]

"In the end, as with all such things, I perceive a Spirit of malice behind it."

Here again we can see one of the most used trick of the conservative right wing extreme: the demonization of the ideas contrary to theirs.

That is so in this thread, it was so about ICR's view of Evolution (www.icr.org), and it is also true as seen in the "US Presidency" thread.

[Johnny Lurker]

Firstly, the question of abortion is not a religious one.

On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one.

Please bear in mind that if you wish to debate any religious or spiritual issue, namely the endpoint for group x, y, or z of people, such arguments will be ignored by myself in this arena.

"Why are you bringing up this subject which is an emotional one and likely only to make people angry?"

It will make people angry. However, it seems to be quite relevant to the current situation in the United States, and thus, Canada.

"it is pointless to discuss it, because most people have their minds made up and are not going to change their minds just by discussing it."

I will agree with you on this about just about any other issue - "gay rights", "gun control", "creation science", etc., etc. - but not this one.

This one is a pressing legal issue, not abstract.

And debate is very important.

bmilder

"keep a civil tone"

Can-do.

"I personally believe that a woman should have a right to choose what she wants and that it's not the government's place to tell her that she can't control her own body."

I will address this later.

"But what if (uhhhg... " what if"'s can be such pain in the arse!) medical technology allows in the future abortions up until, say, the 8th month? Or 8 and half?"

The technology which you are referring to already exists, as far as I know. Perhaps it is not quite developed enough for this, or perhaps the doctor's scissors simply aren't sharp enough.

You know it as Dilation and Extraction.
I know it as Partial-Birth Abortion.

www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf10.html (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf10.html) for more details - and yes, I have verified these facts independently.

They have some useful diagrams there. No real photos, though.

The One Ring:

"I think you'll find in this poll, though, that the younger half of Entmoot is liable to be more liberal than the older half, at least in general."

I very much doubt that statement will prove accurate, however, it is more or less irrelevant.

Back to juntel...

"Firstly, let me point out you misuse of the word "baby"."

www.dictionary.com/cgi-bi...?term=baby (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby)

which is reliant upon...

www.dictionary.com/cgi-bi...erm=infant (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=infant)

As far as this effort at splitting hairs goes, it seems that you are in the right, technically speaking. Some of the definitions of infant (which is what the term "baby" is derived from) depend on the term birth. Some do not.

"But of course it is convenient to call a fetus a baby, since it gives abortion a more cruel face than it should."

I have a request for you. Please leave the spin-doctoring at the door. You've made use of this several times, and I cordially request you to cease.

"The pregnant woman bears an embryo, then a fetus."

And then, after gestation, a neonate, then a juvenile, then an adult. Words.

"My being alive cannot be an argument against the right of abortion by choice."

Not quite, but it can be used in such arguments. Perhaps I will make an example of one later in this post or this thread.

"Please remember that murder implies two things: malicious intent and illegal killing."

Not necessarily.

It generally implies premeditation, not malice... the two words are similar, but not identical. The distinction between manslaughter and murder is not based on the emotions or rationale behind the act, but whether the intent was the death of the victim. For example, if a member of a cult poisons their spouse in the genuine belief that they will be sent to some sort of heaven, they are not intending to do harm to the victim, but they did premeditate the murder.

Another example would be that of Mr. Latimer, here in Canada. He put his daughter to death. Did he bear any malice towards her? It would seem not. He simply felt that her death was preferable for her to prolonged suffering.

Yet he knew his actions would kill her, and thus it was still murder.

(Note that I do not condone his actions in any way)

Yes, this is splitting hairs. I'll stop when you do.

"The hands are made primarily for..."

This is quite an absurd argument coming from an agnostic.
Since you explicitly used the word "made", you have said that hands were made for certain purposes.

Rather than completing a lengthy and tedious chain of proof here, I will ask you these questions.

Who made these hands?
Who decided their purpose?

Be careful how you answer...

Now, for the greater issue provoked by your argument.

"The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano?"

"shouldn't" has nothing, repeat, NOTHING, to do with this.

I shall repeat myself.

"On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one."

It is not a question of morality, nor, by extention, religion.

As far as your argument goes, it bears very limited relevance to the point at hand, but I'll try to address it in any case.

(Let's assume that for future reference, we're talking about vaginal, heterosexual sex here - any other type really bears no relevancy to this discussion.)

Ah, screw it... I really can't make a connection between the choice between abstinence and pregnancy being invalidated and playing the piano.

Action and consequence, my boy.

"I am quite saddened that the choice to abortion is viewed as a practical luxury."

Luxury? Perhaps not in some cases.

Necessity?

"Are these two cells a human being?"

Some, speaking logically, would say they are, including me.

Others, speaking biologically, would say that they are a member of Homo sapiens sapiens when they exhibit all the necessary physical traits.

And some, speaking philosophically, would say that they are humans only upon gaining sentience. In that case, it would be necessary to define that word more clearly... does it require sensory perception or self-knowledge?

However, the philosophical definition is utterly useless in matters of law.

"For "killing" those two cells"

Why is "killing" in quotation marks? It is killing - that is undebatable. There was life. There was cellular structure. There was the potential for reproduction. Really, now... what are you trying to suggest?

"This issue is what my American Heritage class last year called a "Culture War"."

Indeed.

It can be resolved through war or separation, or through proselytizing.

"What bmilder (i think) put forward is that that respect should be mutual, thus implying that we should respect the pregnant woman's choice, a choice based on her beliefs, a choice protected by a law of mutual respect."

Do you know what makes this different from practically any other issue facing the U.S. (and by extention, Canada) currently?

It is not one of morals, or ethics.

You see, if these fetii are human, then their death is murder (note the conditional statement). It is murder for profit, and it is occuring on a huge scale. They cannot defend themselves, and thus must be defended.

And if the fetii are human, then there is a third party. Then Roe v. Wade would guarantee the mother's right not simply over whether or not to give birth, but whether or not to kill her child.

It is not some abstract concept which the pro-lifers are fighting for... it is the third party.

And now, for a brief intermission, Anduin.

"You can't pass a law that includes one and excludes another."

Yes, you can.

There are multiple ways.

Firstly, as far as life-threatening, you can have a doctor certify this under oath, or if that's not enough for you, two doctors and a notary, with enclosed evidence. It's certainly not impossible, or even implausible.

As far as incest goes, a simple DNA test would do the trick. Whether we would WANT to make these kinds of abortions legal or not is another question altogether, and one which I don't plan to address.

Rape is slightly more complex. Under the most strict conditions, a conviction of a rapist would be required. In a more liberal system, perhaps charges would need to be pressed, or a complaint made. Perhaps simply an affirmation under oath would be trusted. Polygraphy and forensics, anyone?

"Furthermore, once a persons rights are taken away, there is no turning back."

Were this true, and the fetii were proven to be people with their right-to-life withdrawn, then my cause is hopeless.

I refuse to accept this.

IronParrot:

If you dig around enough, you should be able to find actual ultrasound pictures of the process. I believe that there was one ultrasound movie made of a D&C abortion, which was entitled "The Silent Scream" due to the fetus's facial expression during death.

And if you have access to medical journals, you might want to look around for some "septic shock" as cause of death... you never know where you'll end up.

Eruve:

"I don't feel the government has the right to make the choice for anyone."

Legally speaking, the government prevents you from killing your children, or your spouse, or your parents. This is the basis of the pro-life argument in legal terms.

bmilder, again:

"No matter what laws are passed, women are still going to have abortions."

Some will, undoubtedly.

But some will avoid high-risk behavior because they don't have the money to pay for one, and don't have the prowess wielding a coathanger.

And for many, the guilt of the decision (well-documented, might I add) might not be appeased by the government's implicit approval any more.

"But it makes much more sense for them to legally get them in a clean doctor's office than on the street illegally."

Would you have advocated giving street gangs factory-made firearms as opposed to zipguns to reduce the possibility of them backfiring and harming the user? It makes more sense for only the victim to die rather than both, doesn't it?

"Well, there lies all the question, isn't it?"

I WILL answer this question.

"The pro-lifers' certainty is backed (in most cases it seems) by scriptures, traditions, and of course good will (mostly i hope)."

You should know better than this.

Fat middle:

"but for the psychic effects"

I'm assuming you mean psychological effects, namely PAS and the increased suicide rate...

"now i don´t expect anybody will be able to read all that attentively"

*looks at the length of his post*

Uh-oh...

Eruve (again?):

"Do you say a caterpillar is a butterfly? Of course not."

There's a difference of semantics, one of appearances... not of biology.

Might I also point out that there is no larval, metamorphal, or transitionary stage in the human life cycle.

Juntel (yet again):

"The human foetus"

Fetus. The o is not the conventional spelling any more.

Shanamir Duntak (for the first time?):

"Anyway, I think a foetus is nothing human as long as the brain activity is near zero."

If I were to kill you, your brain waves would stop. You would still be human after your death. A dead human, but a human nonetheless.

Besides, brain waves from the fetus are detectable on an EEG (I think that's the proper abbreviation) at six weeks, whereas abortions are legal until the instant of birth - this seems to be defined by the head exiting the vagina, making D&X abortions "legal".

Obviously, the difference between when you believe abortions should be legal until and when the law defines them as legal until is large.

"Most of the time she'll have a burnout just to give her child away to adoption."

Read about the psychological complications of induced abortions. They're far more serious than those of natural abortions (read: miscarriages), and make those of adoption look like a picnic.

juntel (for probably the last time):

"as seen in the "US Presidency" thread."

Really, now... I must check that out.

I'll finish this off tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Johnny Lurker]

I'll do this one by an informal reverse-proof... more or less freestylin' my way through, though.

Stage One

Let's back the clock up to about nine months or so after I was born.

I could read and repeat. I believe the first thing I read and recited was "Post office".

This act displayed clear mental capabilities - I was able to sense the light patterns, change them into letters, process the letters into syllables, and then pronounce them through breathing patterns, vocal chord contractions, and tongue, jaw, and lip positioning.

Was I sentient? In any sense of the word, yes.

Was I self-sufficient (as in, my mother's death would not by default result in mine)? Essentially. If I was not harmed in her death, and someone else took care of my feeding, shelter, and clothing, I could have survived.

Am I entitled to all the legal rights of an adult?

You'd better believe it.

[Johnny Lurker]

Stage Two

The clock is at a day or so after my birth.

"Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me"... ah, forget it.

At this point, I'm a fairly big kid. A shade under 23 inches and 10 pounds, I've got photographic evidence that I had two fully-functional eyes and ears, hands that could grasp (my dad's chest hair being the first victim of my iron grip), a heart, two lungs, two kidneys, a bladder... essentially, I was more or less fully equipped for the next ten or so years. All systems were go.

Was I sentient? Probably. I'd wager that my first thoughts were something to the effect of, "This food is pretty good stuff. Sure beats that crud they pump through my hose." - although it wouldn't have been in English, of course, and since my brain was a quarter of the whopping size it is now (by weight and volume), I might have taken a little while to figure it out. And, of course, having those scalpels so close to my head must have been a bit traumatic... anyways, back on topic.

Was I self-sufficient? Yeah. I wasn't at the point where I could go and order some chicken and a Shirley Temple from Swiss Chalet, but I was no longer physically reliant on my mother. The cord was cut.

(edit)

And the law protected my life...

[Johnny Lurker]

Stage Three

The clock is at about forty-five seconds to a minute after I was born.

I'm more or less in the same state that I was at Stage Two, with a few changes - I've probably got a royal headache from the fluorescent lights in the hospital - my eyes had to adjust to that, after all. However, the cord was just cut, and I am by all definitions a separate person. And I'm alive.

Do I enjoy the protection of the law?

Tell you what. If you can look me in the eyes and say with sincerity that anyone had the right to take my life at this point, you don't deserve to live.

(edited to fix the ezcodes)

[Johnny Lurker]

Stage Four

The clock is at about ten seconds after my body (including my head) exited my mother's abdomen, and I've probably got the world's biggest hangover.

I'm still connected to her through the umbilical cord, so you could make a very weak argument that I'm part of her body. However, I have a different genetic makeup than her (I'm male, after all), and my organs are the ones that are keeping me alive.

All she's doing at this point is providing nutrients for me - my heart's pumping my blood, my lungs are breathing the air, and my kidneys and intestines have probably just emptied themselves in shock.

Four out of five senses are most likely functioning (my eyes are killing me), and I'm probably suffering from a bad case of sensory overload. Am I sentient? By the basic definition, most definitely. Am I self-aware? Well, let's put it this way - I'm probably in a lot of pain, and although I don't know what's going on, I probably have a pretty good idea of where in my body the pain's coming from.

And I am protected by law.

[Johnny Lurker]

I'll hit the other main stages tomorrow.

Good night.

[Gilthalion]

If you only focus with hostility upon the religious underpinnings of a point of view, to the exclusion of the merits of the ideas presented, you do disservice to these ideas.

(And if you do not believe in Good and Evil, and in spirits that work in their service, then I fear that you will always be defenseless before their ways. I do not "demonize" opposing points of view. I don't have that Power. But when I see the RABID desire for Partial Birth Abortions (D & E), to the exclusion of logic, then I know that it is a "Spirit" of thought that motivates this desire, not any carefully reasoned theory or the experience of millennia of human experience. It is unadulterated Evil. Look at who you choose to stand with, and the horrifying society they advocate...)

My last thread proposed, at least for my Nation, a (workable?) political compromise.

Maybe it isn't workable. But you have a fine mind and I think are a fine person!

Please do me the honor of debating my arugment, and not my convictions! (I only want to spare you defeat in this debate. You may well find irredeemable flaws in my States Rights based compromise. You will fail to shake my certainty in the King of Kings! Not that I think you are trying to do that... :) )

To restate, before it is lost again in the flowing thread, since neither side will EVER agree on a solution for EVERYONE then we can only hope to coexist by leaving such matters up to our representatives State by State. Those who could not stand living in Alabama, where all but the most extreme cases would undoubtedly be outlawed, would be free to live in New York, where such things are greeted with more enthusiasm than is seemly.


(And with that, the little hobbit (who did live in the SOUTH-farthing if you remember) looked at the old globe on his desk and pondered whether or not the Shire might not have to secede from the Union...)

[juntel]

For JL

"On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one."

-Biologically, the pro-lifers like to say that science says that a fetus ( foetus in french, my mistake above) and they go on quoting this book or that book. But in the end it all comes down to a battle of quotes, some for, some against.
I'll let people go in the libraries for themselves.
-Logically... huh? Well, in that case the problem is that there must be agreement on the premises, all of them, in their multiple contexts. And since this is about logic, those premises must be totally independant of religious beliefs or moral values not supported by logic... good luck on that!
-Legally. Yup. And now it's legal. Tomorrow it may not. Then next week it be again. What's your point.


"Please bear in mind that if you wish to debate any religious or spiritual issue, namely the endpoint for group x, y, or z of people, such arguments will be ignored by myself in this arena"

That's your choice.
As I said above (a few months ago!!!!), I did insist on the religious point because it was implicitely and explicitely called on by some of the Entmooters in this thread.
Since you do not want to touch this point, then one will expect you to have arguments that in no way will call for values and beliefs that are directly or indirectly based on scripture or faith in some religion. If at any time to support your argument you need a value or belief that comes from your faith in your deity or deities, then do expect from me that I will address it.

"effort at splitting hairs"

I guess if you had your way, you would call a baby the newly fecundated egg by a spermatozoid.
You yourself say that this debate is important. So shouldn't the words used be as precise as we can? I ain't splitting hair, " my boy", I think one should know when to use the word "baby" loosely, and when one should use it technically.
If you think I'm splitting hair, so I should guess you would be for using the "loose" use of "baby"? And you want to make this important debate on such loose use of language?

"Please leave the spin-doctoring at the door"

Explain yourself. Take that quote of mine again, and tell me how you consider that as an non-essential point. The use of words is important in this debate, and I think that pointing out, for example, that calling the one-cell embryo after fecundation a baby is somewhat exagerated is not inessential.
I believe I should express myself on that matter without it being called spin-doctoring (and that accusation, by itself, isn't spin-doctoring?!)

"And then, after gestation, a neonate, then a juvenile, then an adult. Words"

Yes. Words. And what biological and legal meaning these words will take is the subject of this debate. Naming things at least to describe what we are talking about is an important step. Afterwards we can, through this lenghty human history, decide individually and collectively what they mean regarding the abortion question.
So, what's your point.


"'Please remember that murder implies two things: malicious intent and illegal killing.'
Not necessarily."

Hey, at the time I also thought like you, but was unsure. So I looked in the dictionary (Webster) and found: "1.n.(law) the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought"
Then go back to my original post where you took my quote, and you'll understand why I said what I said.
But if you call THAT hair-splitting...


"'The hands are made primarily for...'
This is quite an absurd argument coming from an agnostic."

Ok, got me there... So I'll rephrase for you: "The functions of the hands is that they are primarily for...", etc...
You caught me at using too loose a language for explaining what I wanted to explain...


"'The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano?'
'shouldn't' has nothing, repeat, NOTHING, to do with this"

My quote in context: "And about your claim that sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it. The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano? The feet are made for walking, so one shouldn't dance? You see, the function of sex is reproduction, as the function of the hand and the foot is to hold,etc... and walk respectively. But their usage can be more varied, and so is for sex"

So my point was: it is not because some part of us has a specific organic function that we can't use that part of us to something other than that function.
Of course it doesn't mean we have to use it for something other.
But if someone tells me that "sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it", then my above analogy is adequate to show that that someone's logic isn't right (which doesn't mean, of course, that his conclusion isn't right).

"Action and consequence, my boy"

You're right about that. "My boy"


"'I am quite saddened that the choice to abortion is viewed as a practical luxury.'
Luxury? Perhaps not in some cases.
Necessity?"

"Perhaps not in some cases" (emphasis mine)
In "some" cases? You seam to mean by that that most cases are a practical luxury? In that case, I even more saddened.
"Necessity?" Maybe in the best of worlds alot wouldn't be necessary, and those women who chose to have an abortion in our reality wouldn't in that other utopic world. As for our reality, I leave to the woman concerned the choice to do what she wants, according to her perception of her situation.


"'Are these two cells a human being?'"

You say that logically they are a human being (whatever that means, please expand on this). Then if those two cells are forced to separate from each other, to artificially "create" true twins, so those two cells become now two human beings?
That's the point of my question.

"'For "killing" those two cells'"

It should be written "murdering". My bad.


"other issue facing the U.S. (and by extention, Canada)"

Off Topic: hehe... aren't we tired, us canadians, to be considered an extension of the US?
I guess we don't have the choice...


"You see, if these fetii are human, then their death is murder"

Hmm... Let me "split hairs" here and rephrase: "if thse fetii are human individuals, then their death is murder".
Then this phrasing is more palatable(sp?) to me and I'm almost agreeing... almost because, as I said in a post a long way above many months ago, the decision on what an human individual is isn't independent (as far as I know, feel free to correct me) from a belief system (may it be religious or not).
So you see, even if you base yourself on logic, you CAN'T escape the fact that logic needs premises, and those premises are unattainable by logic.
Logic isn't an all powerfull god that tells us everything: it is a method that need a starting point, and it can't give us that starting point.


"There are multiple ways"

...and all these ways you mention, the woman is treated virtually as a guilty person that has to prove some sort of "inocence", adding to her suffering, her shame, her discomfort.
This is especially arrogant and dispecable(sp?) in the case of a rape.


"You should know better than this."

What a powerfull argument...


================================================== ===

AND NOW THE STAGES OF LIFE.... OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!

C'mon JL!
Read this thread again!
It was clearly said in this thread, by me at least, here (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessage? topicID=347.topic&index=5) and here (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessage? topicID=347.topic&index=32), that the point of when is the fetus or embryo a human individual protected by law is far from clear, so your melodramatic rewind into the womb is quite pointless, since anyways the question you want to address by your little play is "where does the fetus or embryo become a human being (individual) if it is not since the start?"

Of course, you could have done that, just simply asking the question.
But nooooooooo!
A little theatrical presentation, much like the "Silent Scream" effect, seems necessary for JL.
Go ahead then.
As if that little exercise hasn't been done over and over and over again... one more time won't hurt so much.




I do hope that Entmooters, pro-lifers as well as pro-choicers and those in-between, will calmly re-read all the thread.



=======================

For Gilthalion

I raise the religious issue when I see it, when it is obviously the source of the ideas.

"Demonizing" the opposite opinions means to attribute to them malefic or extremely voluntary malicious origins... which you did not hesitate to do.
To say that essentially the people with the opposite view are somewhat servant of the Demon (Spirit of malice), even if unknowingly, is more hostile than everything I said (that you qualified as hostile).
As I said in another thread, ALL my friends are of a religion or another (mostly of christian origins), and we have opposite views on many things, including the abortion issue. But NONE of them is so extreme or deluded to the point of talking of a "Spirit of malice" behind the willfull decisions that some people make: they believe ardently that their deity gave free will to its human creation, and they don't need to demonize opposing views to argue agains them: they just say that people make mistakes, and sometimes very bad mistakes and decision.
The "demonization" of the opposition is very helpfull for you, I'm sure, as it is a very effection distraction from the real issues.


====================================

I'll leave you both with that above.
I'll come back in 2 or 3 days.
Enjoy yourselves.

[Gwaihir]

Juntel, no offence, and I'm just making a nuetruel observation here, but just how long does it take to you write your very *long* posts? Also, you might try saying something different in them than repeating yourself over and over again. ;) Just a thought......

David

PS: I would post something completely disproving what you believe to be logic, but I will refrain for the time.....but only for the time.......

[Gilthalion]

"A soft answer turneth away wrath."

It is certainly very handy to "demonize" or to cry "demonization" rather than to deal with the arguments at hand.

(The little hobbit lowers his eyes in shame...)

Juntel, for my part, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I do not wish for anyone to feel demonized. If your Christian friends do not acknowledge the Power of Hell, I wonder about them. I mean, what's the point, otherwise? (And the fact of spirit life, and the evil intent of some of it, does not preclude Free Will.)

As for Abortion...

If any are uncertain of when to define the beginning of "life" then it behooves them to give the benefit of that doubt to the unborn person. It does not take any particular religious faith to believe this.

When, against their own knowledge and reason and inclinations they refuse to do this, there is Something Else afoot. Especially when their support even of Partial Birth Abortions is cold eyed and unyielding. No one can argue that such things serve any Good Purpose whatsoever.

I do not raise the spectre of malicious Spirits to "demonize" anyone or their argument. Rather, it is from the self-evident circumstances of our society that I conclude such Spirits are indeed at work today as they always have been. (It also helps explain why some Hobbits choose to eat too much, drink too much, and smoke too much!)

It is a dogmatic faith (!) that insists otherwise against the long accumulated evidence and testimony of Humanity. It is certainly not Science to utterly reject such arguments without empirical evidence to the contrary.


***
Again, I apologize if my "demonizing" is a distraction, because my POINT, which I raise for the Third time and final time (I hope), is that the issue of Abortion will not be settled to anyone's satisfation.

The only political compromise, therefore, is to allow each region to do as seems best to them. To do otherwise, is Tyranny (See US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION post.)


(And before the little hobbit's own post grew again to a tremendous length, he concluded his note with a smile.) :)


P.S.
It took me four attempts to send this. I believe there is a malicious spirit in my machine! :lol:

[Johnny Lurker]

"But in the end it all comes down to a battle of quotes"

You will not have it that easy against me, sir.

"Well, in that case the problem is that there must be agreement on the premises"

I will go further into this issue after my demonstration is complete.

"Yup. And now it's legal."

Ditto for the above.

"So shouldn't the words used be as precise as we can?"

You misunderstand... perhaps I should have been more clear on this and the issue of "spin-doctoring".

I'll tackle this as a block, right after... this.

"Yes. Words. And what biological and legal meaning these words will take is the subject of this debate."

Words are secondary. They take on some importance, but precision of language is a NICETY. It is NOT critical.

Now, listen carefully.

Referring to a fetus as a baby is, scientifically speaking, inaccurate. Does it carry a certain emotional weight with it which the proper terminology doesn't? Yes.

Does it change the heart of the argument? Not really, no.

(I'm jumping around a bit in this, but it's one issue if you think about it.)

Now, you've spoken multiple times to alleged "demonization", "tactical choice of words" (this one could be taken multiple ways - if I'm interpreting it incorrectly, please let me know), and giving "abortion a more cruel face than it should".

Essentially, you're arguing that the pro-life side is spin-doctoring through word selection.

Why I'm asking you to cease this argument is because it is, quite simply, fruitless. Word choice for emotional impact can be useful or devious (depending on which side you're on), but emotional baggage on words really doesn't matter in the long run. Sure, maybe it'll sway votes, but that baggage cannot change facts.

I can understand how you can object to the use of the word "baby" in reference to a human fetus, and I will agree that the term is not entirely accurate for the purpose with which it was used. BUT...

In the context in which it was used, you could change every instance of the word "baby" to "fetus" and the meaning stays essentially intact. Is there some emotional baggage dropped? Does it lack the visceral impact of the image of dying babies? Yes.

But it still says pretty much the same thing.

"And you want to make this important debate on such loose use of language?"

Do I want to? No.
Will I tolerate it? Yes.

This is not just a word game.

"I believe I should express myself on that matter without it being called spin-doctoring"

Yes, I definitely should have been clearer. I know it's lots of fun to point out emotionally-loaded words and all, but it's pointless. I wasn't accusing you of spin-doctoring (or intending to, anyways), but of focusing on it.

"So I looked in the dictionary (Webster) and found: "1.n.(law) the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought""

You have a definition that includes it. I have one that does not.

If you wish to deal with the accuracy of these definitions, very well. Do get back to me on this.

"it is not because some part of us has a specific organic function that we can't use that part of us to something other than that function."

Which is not relevant to his point. Let's look at his argument a bit more closely, shall we?

"Sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it."

Now, let's add in a given. If the mother, down the line, considers an abortion, it's fairly safe to assume that reproduction in this case was a negative.

See if you can follow this...

"If you do not wish to incur a negative effect (reproducing, third-degree burns) of an action, you should not engage in the prerequisite action (sex, lighting one's body on fire)."

Logically equivalent.

"You seam to mean by that that most cases are a practical luxury?"

Well, cases that involve the life of the mother, rape, incest, or health of the baby only make up seven percent of all of the 38 million-odd legal abortions that have took place in the U.S....

I suppose whether the other 93 percent were a luxury depends on what you consider to be "essential". What I refer to as the "some cases" would be that seven percent. Your opinions may differ.

"Off Topic: hehe... aren't we tired, us canadians, to be considered an extension of the US? I guess we don't have the choice..."

The way our government follows theirs around scares me.

"You say that logically they are a human being (whatever that means, please expand on this)."

That's not quite what I said, but don't worry, I will expand on it.

"the woman is treated virtually as a guilty person"

She's not treated as someone who is to blame. AFAIC, they'd have to do less than what is required to press charges against those who hurt her.

"'You should know better than this.'

What a powerfull argument..."

Well, I honestly thought you had learned your lesson on the Creation Science thread... must it really be rehashed here?

Assuming that religion is a part of people's arguments doesn't seem to pay off very well for you.

"your melodramatic rewind into the womb is quite pointless"

If it was pointless, I would not be doing it. You shall see... you shall see.

Emotions are good in politics, but I'm not running for office.

"I'll come back in 2 or 3 days."

I should be finished with you by then.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Oh no... not again...
Not the "I-quote-one-word-you-say-to-try-make-you-look-like-an-idiot-but-i-totally-forget-about-the-subjet" thing!

Anyway... as you all look like to be high on speed and posted like crazy, I'll finish reading the thread before adding my comments...

[Shanamir Duntak]

"If I were to kill you, your brain waves would stop. You would still be human after your death. A dead human, but a human nonetheless."

Well... I believe wou'll never kill me anyway. :p The fact is that a "dead human" once thought (some may argue on this point) And once had brain activity. Fetus (sorry for using foetus first time, as Juntel said, in french it's spelled like that. common mistake, like language & langage)

"Besides, brain waves from the fetus are detectable on an EEG (I think that's the proper abbreviation) at six weeks, whereas abortions are legal until the instant of birth - this seems to be defined by the head exiting the vagina, making D&X abortions "legal"."

So, for me, legal abortion would be until the fetus is 6 weeks old.

But I do agree with a state-by-state compromise like Gil said. But, here in Canada, we all know such a compromise in impossible. But I think that there would'nt be so much divergence of opinion in that matter. I don't mean we'd all be happy but that we'd all accept it in a not long term.

Now, the big point. You once hurt my feeling with your sentence by sentences type of post. Here's the conversation back then:

Shan: "Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas"

JL: You have pillars that support your arguments. Like it or not, I'm going to demolish those pillars. Will I split hairs? Not always.

And now, YOU don't want to use a correct, appropriate language? What's up with you? Saying something with it pleases you and backing when it no longers? This type of attitude makes me sick. No, in fact it makes me mad.

==========

No have fun. Take some of my sentences, out of context, and split hairs if you want. I don't care. About you, about what you think, about what you think of me.

You'll almost never hear any french laugh when an english stumble trying to speak french. But you'll gladly make fun of my or anyone's little mistake. We once talked about how our two people were different. That's part of it. We know the meaning of "respect" (No offense IP)

(Shan calms down and takes a big breath.)

[Johnny Lurker]

"Now, the big point. You once hurt my feeling with your sentence by sentences type of post."

"And now, YOU don't want to use a correct, appropriate language?"

"Saying something with it pleases you and backing when it no longers?"

Take a careful look at what I wrote. More specifically, what I didn't.

I did not refer to the fetus (or foetus... technically, it is acceptable. My apologies.) as a baby. Someone else did... I believe it was dmaul97. Juntel correctly called attention to the fact that what he was referring to as a baby was not, by the strictest definition. I acknowledged this, but argued that replacement of the inaccurate term - "baby" - with the term which he was clearly referring to - "f(o)etus" - did not cause a major change in the sentence's meaning.

Do you want proof? Here you go.

1) dmaul97: "People say that babies in the womb are not humans, but they are simply wrong."

2) juntel: "Firstly, let me point out you misuse of the word "baby"."

3) Me: "As far as this effort at splitting hairs goes, it seems that you are in the right, technically speaking."

4) juntel: "I think one should know when to use the word "baby" loosely, and when one should use it technically."

5) Me: "In the context in which it was used, you could change every instance of the word "baby" to "fetus" and the meaning stays essentially intact."

Those are all direct quotes, in linear order.

Now, as far as what you quoted...

You: "Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas"

Me: "You have pillars that support your arguments. Like it or not, I'm going to demolish those pillars. Will I split hairs? Not always."

You: (This is where the misunderstanding starts.) "That about why I don't want you to destroy my "pillars", because they are weak."

Me: (Trying to explain what I meant by "pillars") "If you take some care in choosing your words, your "pillars" won't be weakened by them"

"However, if the ideas behind the words are weak... then they need to be demolished."

In a nutshell, the "pillars" which I was referring to were the IDEAS, not the words. That should have been made clear to you, and if it was not, I sincerely apologize.

"But you'll gladly make fun of my or anyone's little mistake."

When someone makes a mistake in language, I generally try to give them an opportunity to clarify or correct.

If the mistake, however, was in the underlying idea, I don't owe them that.

Did I poke fun at your "little mistake"(s)? Please cite an example - one is all I need to be remorseful.

[Gilthalion]

And with that, the little hobbit decided that he was quite right to think that there would never be a solution and determined not to provoke anyone else himself. And so he decides to follow juntel and leave the thread for a while.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Well.. for me pillars in sentences are words wich you build the sentence with. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And, I now believe everything woth saying has been said in this thread.

[Johnny Lurker]

I'm not going to gripe, but suffice it to say I'm going to be really freakin' busy.

Will I ever have a chance to finish my "melodramatic" demonstration? Let's hope so.

Adios.

[juntel]

There are no time constraints (to " finish with me")

This thread was revived from many months of hibernation anyway.

[anduin]

I am just curious what you "experts" think would happen if abortion was made illegal? What would happen to welfare or the unwanted babies? Someone (JL i think) mentioned that there are something like 38 million legal abortions that have taken place in the US, what if abortion was illegal and there were 38 million unwanted babies in the US.....along with the already numerous unwanted babies?? Do you think that our welfare system could handle that? Someone has to cloth, feed and diaper those babies. Do you think that a 15 year old or a 20 something unwed mother is going to be able to afford that? You would say that they could be put up for adoption, but there are already thousands of children waiting for adoption.

Let's go back to the issue of sex for a moment and it's "purpose". Look at China. They have such a huge population that they can no longer handle what people they have so they made it illegal to have more than one child. Why do you think that this is so? You would think that if they knew that having more than one child was against the law, they would stop having sex. (Actually, I am not sure why they just don't make women have their tubes tied, or the men have vasectomies....maybe be they do??) JL, you think that the only reason to have sex is to procreate....then why do the Chinese still have sex?? They aren't allowed to have any more children. Could it be that sex is just a part of the human animal?

Try looking at it another way. I didn't meet my husband until I was 26, and didn't marry him until I was 31. Would you have me wait to have sex with him until I was married? Say we don't want to have children....which we don't....are you suggesting that we NEVER have sex??!!! And since that is completely impractical, what happens if something goes amiss and I become pregnant? Would I get an abortion? Hard to say really what I would do in that situation, but WE sure would like to make that decision ourselves!

If the government ever does get away with making abortion illegal, there better be a fool proof form of birth control out there besides abstinence. Anything less is simply oppressive!

[juntel]

well, people can still eat poutine until they get married...

Seriously, I was growing quite concerned that so few women got involved in this thread (although it's true that this board has more male members, I think...)
Makes me grow more conscious that the society we live in (western civilisation) has grown with male-dominated/-oriented values and religions, and that fair treatment of women is quite recent relatively speaking. And that may explain why men still seem to be the ones that are the more volubile on the subject.

I do not mean that a pro-choice society would be more fair for the treatment of women; I just mean that the solution is still very much skewed in our societies by male domination of the political arena. There would probably be fewer abortions in a society where women would have more input into what our society should be economically. After all, abortion isn't an end in itself (I hope people knew that).

Btw, I do not mean that women would be pro-choice (Elanor, I think, is pro-life).

I agree with Gilthalion that people may never come to agree on that situation, but I disagree at the level at which the decision is to be made: I think it should be at the individual level, meaning here the pregnant woman, and not at the state/provincial level.

[Gilthalion]

The reason I think it must be made at the state/provincial level is because I think it is wrong, and do not wish to live in a society where such practices are tolerated/condoned/advocated. There are many others that feel the same. I personally make exception for medical emergency and rape/incest, but this should still be a last, very last resort even so.

If I cannot convince others to turn away from support, implicit or explicit, for the practice, then I ask for the freedom not to have their morality forced down my throat with all of the power of Government behind it. Let me live in peace with folks who believe as I do.

A Civil War was fought in this nation over Slavery (among many other issues). I hope that another is not fought over Abortion (among many other issues). It's been a long time since people were so divided.


EDIT: I wanted to revise my remarks before someone was upset, but I may have been too late. They are revised now.

[Eruve]

Sorry to anyone who was subjected to the rant I went on this morning. There was no call for me to fly off the handle the way I did, and I apologize. I'm not usually this unreasonable. I won't be posting any further on this thread.

[Gilthalion]

I would like to apologise to everyone for my own participation on this thread. It has nothing to do with the appreciation we all have for Tolkien's works and contributes nothing to understanding and good will.

I humbly recommend that this thread be stricken from the Entmoot and the topic be banished from the Entmoot.

[anduin]

I should have stood up and applauded you, I am sorry. Your post reflected my exact sentiments. I too was a little more than peeved about the promiscuous statement made by Gil. I understand your reaction though, and all who read this thread should understand it. For me it is frightning to think about a law being passed that excludes men, yet is mostly in the hands of men. I am not a cold hearted person, unfeeling, nor a monster. But I cannot be in favor of something that would not give me a choice over my own body.

There are no easy answers, but when you turn the Natural Order on its head, separating SEX and PROCREATION, you make the love of a man and woman into an intimate entertainment, rather than an act of loving creation.

Are you saying that the only time you and your wife make love is in an attemp to conceive? What about women who have had their tubes tied? Does this mean that she and her partner are only having sex at that point for entertainment, that there isn't any love involved because there is no longer any way that she can create life? And what of the women that are beyond child bearing years? Should they no longer have sex because there can no longer be any creation of life?

[Gilthalion]

Actually, the Mrs did have her tubes tied. And so we can't have children. That might be part of why I get so emotional about the subject. But in the fading world I come from, sex is reserved for the intimacy and responsibility of marriage, and some (not me) WOULD say that even then, only for procreation.

It would be a civilization and culture very strange to us if it ever existed, but it won't.

And I again apologise for my long diatribes.

[Eruve]

Gilthalion said: "It has nothing to do with the appreciation we all have for Tolkien's works and contributes nothing to understanding and good will."

Very wise and I thank you. This is the very reason I don't want this discussed to begin with (way back at the top of the thread). Enough said, lay it to rest.

[juntel]

To lay it to rest is one thing.
To delete it another.

This thread shouldn't disapear, even if you decide to close it.
What is done is done.
It is a mirror of who we are, even though the mirror is imperfect.

I wasn't here during the day, so I don't know the content of the dialog mentionned above.

I have myself refrained from long posts lately, mostly due to my incapacity for now to contain an overuse of sarcasm; I don't like that in myself, nor in others.

We can't change each other's world in such debates, at least not overnight.
And of course no one should force down someone's throat one's beliefs.
Hence the primacy of individual decision in the case of such divergence of opinion.

[IronParrot]

What juntel said. From an admin perspective - if this goes, I'm not going to be the one getting my hands dirty doing it. It's still an intelligent debate with legitimate points being brought up.

And it may seem like I'm absent from this thread but I'm watching it. Trust me.

[Johnny Lurker]

I am quite irritated... scratch that, I am ANGRY... with you now.

It is not whatever tone the post that begins with "I am just curious what"... Any tone there might or might not be to a message might perturb me, but it will not anger me.

I am not angered by your usage of my statistic - yes, it was mine. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I am most certainly not angered by the fact that you disagree with me. This does not affect me in the least. Any opinion you might hold - and perhaps share - about my viewpoint is your inherent right. I might not agree, but nothing you can say about my viewpoint will make me angry...

UNLESS...

you lie about it (my viewpoint).

And THAT is why I am angry with you.

Exhibit 1...

"Someone (JL i think) mentioned that there are something like 38 million legal abortions"

You tied the two-letter abbreviation "JL" to my handle, Johnny Lurker with this line. There is no flaw in this line itself.

Exhibit 2.

"JL, you think that the only reason to have sex is to procreate...."

This is the lie.

It is a direct quote from Topic 347, Post index number 72, made by one "anduin - Entwife - Administrator", at 8:11:05 PM on August 25th, 2000 AD, which has not been edited at the current time (23:54:20 CST 08/26/00)

Let's look at it piece by piece.

"JL"

You are using this in a direct reference to me. There is really no other possible option, given Exhibit 1 and the fact that you make use of the word "you" directly after it.

"JL, you think that"

You are making a statement of fact here. It is not a question about WHETHER I "think" something, it is a statement that says that I do think something.

"you think that the only reason to have sex is to procreate...."

This is the lie.

I do NOT think ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

I have searched through this entire thread, which is the only place I could conceivably have mentioned such an opinion.

And I have not done so.

And thus, you do not have proof of your statement.

Furthermore, and this is FTR, I think that there are MANY reasons to have sex. You can have sex for your own pleasure, sex for exercise, sex for preventing prostate cancer (no, I'm not kidding), sex for procreation, sex for bringing pleasure to your partner, and sex to consummate a marriage.

And, to top it all off, I believe that all of these reasons are quite valid within the bonds of marriage. I have NEVER claimed anything to the contrary.



I am FED UP with this. It MUST end, and end it will.

You, anduin, essentially have three options.

1) Ban me. You have administrative powers, and I will not bear you any further ill will if you simply decide to be rid of me. There will be no negative consequences brought down upon you from my corner if you take this option.

I advise you to consider it carefully.

2) Ignore me. You can do this in many different ways. Whatever the method or the reason, if I, in my sole judgement, decide that you have chosen this option, I will put myself into exile from this board for an indeterminate period. This is not a threat, but a fulfillment of the "and end it will" promise.

3) Apologize to me, and this will be over. Regardless of the sincerity of your apology, I will, for my part, put this lie behind me.


The ball is in your court now... the choice is yours. Choose wisely.

[anduin]

I am sorry. The first paragraph was directed towards you, this much is true. As for the other two they were direct towards Gil. I had to go back and check for myself to make sure I really connected you to that statement because I knew that I meant it for Gil. So you have every right to be angry and I do appolgize. As for banning you, that would never be an option because you debated in a sound way and we here at Entmoot do not ban people for that...no matter how people's opinions differ from ours.

As for laying the thread to rest, I am all for that. Gil made his wishes clear (among others), but he had made his post before I finished mine. It was only after I finished my post that I saw he made a reference to end this thread in another post elsewhere on this board.

Finally, the only reason that this thread was brought to the top was because I wanted to keep some other thread pure. It was a blessing that it died down the first time, and maybe I should have been more careful calling it to the top once again, but at the time there seemed to be a need.

Now if no one highly objects to the closing of this thread..............................