Poll

Pick the view that most closely resembles your own.

Pro-Choice (no exceptions)
Pro-Choice (exceptions: late term, other)
Pro-Choice for thee, but not for me (Would not personally do)
Pro-Choice (Purely pragmatic. Collision of three rights. Chose winner)
Pro-Life (Purely pragmatic.  Collision of three rights.  Chose winner)
Pro-Life for me, but not for thee (same as #3, just different label)
Pro-Life (exceptions: rape, incest, other)
Pro-Life (no exceptions)

Author Topic: IssueTalk: Abortion  (Read 5251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #140 on: April 08, 2016, 11:40:25 PM »
....and hopefully it didn't go unnoticed that it was ME who responded to BOTH of her posts! I would LOVE to continue that discussion, if POSSIBLE... (hint-hint!)
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #141 on: April 08, 2016, 11:46:47 PM »
Look, I respect that it's the word of god to you. To anyone who isn't a Christian is quite literally a book. I'm not being disrespectful by calling the bible a book.

I didn't say that you or anyone else had to agree we me that the Bible is the Word of God, or about what I said about it's origins. What I meant by compromise is that I agree not to get up on a soapbox and continue "preaching" about those things if you will just make the one small concession of calling it by it's proper name.

Instead you seem determined to go out of your way to keep finding ways to keep your pissant argument going when there are other-not to mention much BETTER-things to have a discussion and/or debate about!!


It is a book. No matter how you slice it. You're genuinely bordering on PC territory here. "It offends me to call this book a book, so you should call it something else so I'm not triggered." I'll pass. To me, it is a book, and I will call it as such.

Calvin - she was posing that question towards people who are pro-life. Like me and others to answer on behalf of people we disagree with?

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #142 on: April 08, 2016, 11:59:09 PM »
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. Just call The Bible "The Bible," okay? Nothing more needs to be said, implied or insinuated about this. Like I said: if you have to keep the argument going beyond this, that's just you being a pissant, which is someone who has to keep an argument going just to keep it going, or because you don't know the MEANING of the word "compromise!!"

I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #143 on: April 09, 2016, 12:00:43 AM »
You're upset I'm not using capital letters to describe your holy book? Really?



Come on man.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #144 on: April 09, 2016, 12:07:40 AM »
You're upset I'm not using capital letters to describe your holy book? Really?

No. I honestly don't mind that at all. Just be respectful enough to use the word "bible"and have done with it. Why do you seem to be so insanely in love with this argument???



Come on man.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #145 on: April 09, 2016, 12:11:20 AM »
17 posts since Harmony and only one person has actually taken the time to answer her questions.

Just sayin'

I, for one, would be MORE than happy to have you or anyone ELSE weigh in on what I said in response to Harmony's questions. Or just come up with your OWN answers.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #146 on: April 09, 2016, 12:16:28 AM »
You're upset I'm not using capital letters to describe your holy book? Really?

No. I honestly don't mind that at all. Just be respectful enough to use the word "bible"and have done with it. Why do you seem to be so insanely in love with this argument???



Come on man.

I'm genuinely confused what you're even upset about at this point.

And actually, the original post that got you in a tizzy was Harmony calling it a book. And to follow it, but not dictate that others should lead their lives by your holy book. I agree with her. That right there is my response to your answers to her post. And my response to your idea we should legislate by that book. No. Absolutely not.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #147 on: April 09, 2016, 02:02:04 AM »
You're upset I'm not using capital letters to describe your holy book? Really?

No. I honestly don't mind that at all. Just be respectful enough to use the word "bible"and have done with it. Why do you seem to be so insanely in love with this argument???



Come on man.

I'm genuinely confused what you're even upset about at this point.

And actually, the original post that got you in a tizzy was Harmony calling it a book. And to follow it, but not dictate that others should lead their lives by your holy book. I agree with her. That right there is my response to your answers to her post. And my response to your idea we should legislate by that book. No. Absolutely not.

What on EARTH are you babbling about?  When did I say that we should "legislate"from the BIBLE??? All I did was answer her questions according to what I think, know, see and hear. I gave my OPINIONS. That is ALL!!
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #148 on: April 09, 2016, 02:22:03 AM »
Getting caught up on perfectly acceptable terms does seem like it is solely for the sake of argument.

If I brought up passages from the Quran and somebody asked me to call it as such, as an atheist, I don't feel like I would suddenly be prone to the teachings of Islam simply by calling it by the most accepted name.  The biggest variance would be the spelling which tends to happen with translations and are rarely worth quibbling over if one side is making the effort.  Arguing about it and making absolutely no effort to try for an endless parade of posts would probably be met with calls of Islamaphobia. 

Same with the term baby.  It is not some offensive term.
Quote
Mayo Clinic
Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are rapidly developing.

I believe most accept the Mayo Clinic as a reputable medical source.

But just in case,
Quote
University of Maryland Medical Center
Fetal Development
Definition
Learn how your baby is conceived and how your baby develops inside the mother's womb.
I asked for a term other than baby (or human).  Embryo is not a fetus and vice versa, so those are specific terms, but being used in generalized descriptions.

I'm an atheist.  I'm Pro-Choice.  I could answer Harmony's questions as they apply from my perspective (for discussion, not as a mandate).  Unfortunately, Harmony did come in here and decided she did not need to answer questions posed by others.  I have a simple question.  Why?

See, now THAT'S how you present your views!

I thought it was spelled K-o-r-a-n, but if a I had written it that way and someone who is a Muslim had come on here and corrected me, I would probably have said something like "Okay. That's cool." I might have ASKED about the difference in spelling, but I would like to think that I would have been respectful enough not to get into a protracted argument about it, or refer to as something like "the terrorist's handbook." I only said that last thing because I feel that keeping the argument going about the word "book" after I had explained about the Bible being "not just one book" is just as disrespectful as an Islamophobic (?) saying something like that.

As for me calling a "fetus" an unborn baby, that's MY way of saying it. I think I've made it clear that no one has to agree with me, or use the same terminology that I do. I think embryo is the stage between zygote and fetus, and zygote either generalization, or the stage right after.

I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #149 on: April 09, 2016, 02:29:15 AM »
First off, that is not remotely true and never has been, despite it being a popular (although intellectually lazy) buzz phrase of those who are opposed to religion. 

Second, this thread is not limited to legislating abortion.  You were discussing the...for lack of a better term...morality of eating pork, for example.  Again, my point simply is that placing the lives or "feelings" or "rights" of pigs above those of humans is to have a flawed moral scale that makes even discussing the issue of abortion extremely difficult.

If by "religious" you mean Biblical, I agree with you. Like I said before: Our (U.S.) laws were founded out of the Bible, and In many ways and many areas it's something we really need to back to. I would modify a few things. For example, I think they used to "execute" children for disobeying the 5th commandment, and if they killed people for violating ANY commandment, I would be dead MANY times over because of that one, as well as the 3rd, 4th, 8th. If we made them laws that we were expected to LIVE by, and imposed a small penalty, such as fines & jail time, it might become second nature for people to go back to being good to each other, among other benefits. But I was just using the ten commandments as  an example, and yes I am aware of what JESUS said about the ten commandments. So it would not be wrong to say I have "broken" ALL of them in my time.

I also agree about it being an intellectually last argument.


The bolded is calling for biblical law, on top of being historically false. We do not base our laws on the bible, nor should we. I agree it's babble, but it ain't coming from me.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #150 on: April 09, 2016, 02:52:51 AM »
I thought you meant specifically dealing with abortion. It's a complicated issue, but if you paid attention to what I said, I was agreeing in principle with a lot of what bosk had said, and I used  words like "if" and "I think" a lot, not that I would ever actually expect it to happen. Too many people like you around for that.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Female
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #151 on: April 09, 2016, 08:55:17 AM »
The fact that God forbids murdering human beings is sufficient. 

Outside of one of the 10 commandments the bible is full of god-authorized killing of humans.  Deuteronomy 13 and 17.  Exodus 31:14 says to kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath.  It also condones slavery and rape. 

And of course the are several verses in the bible that suggest "life" begins at first breath.  Job 33:4 is one.  Genesis 2:7 is another.

Feel free to let this book dictate your behavior.  But please don't make it dictate mine.

If you're calling the BIBLE "this book" than you don't EVEN know what it IS!!

Wow.  Ok.  First, you know literally NOTHING about me.  You don't know that I spent well over a decade in the baptist church studying this book.

Second, your post took me right back to those pastor's fire and brimstone-type sermons and in one sentence reaffirmed for me quite clearly exactly why I left organized religion.

"I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - M. Gandhi

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Female
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #152 on: April 09, 2016, 08:59:20 AM »
I could answer Harmony's questions as they apply from my perspective (for discussion, not as a mandate).  Unfortunately, Harmony did come in here and decided she did not need to answer questions posed by others.  I have a simple question.  Why?

Why?  Because I had other things to do on a Friday night than be on a computer?  Besides.  I did answer the poll.

I guess I must be doing something wrong here even though I'm not exactly sure what it was.  Obviously this bit of the old boys club isn't for me.  Have fun running off anyone else who dares darken this part of the forum. 

Thanks to those who took the time to stand up for what I said.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #153 on: April 09, 2016, 09:26:34 AM »

If birth control fails and a woman - a married woman - has a health condition making carrying to term potentially life-threatening to her, are you all for her risking her life?  How about if she has other children to take care of?


This one confuses me.  Because it seems to insinuate that we should all just be OK with any mother who doesn't risk her life for her children.   Wouldn't she risk her life for any of the other children she already has?     *WE* shouldn't have to be "for her risking her life"....I think we should all find it shocking if any mother wouldn't risk her own life for one of her children.   To me that practically defines motherhood.   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Female
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #154 on: April 09, 2016, 09:33:36 AM »

If birth control fails and a woman - a married woman - has a health condition making carrying to term potentially life-threatening to her, are you all for her risking her life?  How about if she has other children to take care of?


This one confuses me.  Because it seems to insinuate that we should all just be OK with any mother who doesn't risk her life for her children.   Wouldn't she risk her life for any of the other children she already has?     *WE* shouldn't have to be "for her risking her life"....I think we should all find it shocking if any mother wouldn't risk her own life for one of her children.   To me that practically defines motherhood.

I'm sorry this question confused you.  My father was an OB/GYN for 40 years and my mother was a NICU RN.  We've discussed lots of cases together - without using names, I might add, so no patients privacy was violated.  I never forgot the story of a woman who developed a blood disorder at the end of her first trimester.  Catholic family.  She and her husband had 3 children already under the age of 7.  The blood disorder caused small clots to form in the woman's body impacting both the fetus and causing several strokes to the woman.  At one point, she was kept in a coma to prevent more clots from causing her death.  The husband of the woman was understandably distraught.  He didn't want his wife to die.  He didn't want the mother of his other children to die.  He was told the fetus would very likely have severe complications that would almost certainly be incompatible with life or cause severe mental impairment.  They made the choice.  They chose her life.

So in your mind does that mean she didn't love her children?

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #155 on: April 09, 2016, 09:55:05 AM »
I could answer Harmony's questions as they apply from my perspective (for discussion, not as a mandate).  Unfortunately, Harmony did come in here and decided she did not need to answer questions posed by others.  I have a simple question.  Why?

Why?  Because I had other things to do on a Friday night than be on a computer?  Besides.  I did answer the poll.

I guess I must be doing something wrong here even though I'm not exactly sure what it was.  Obviously this bit of the old boys club isn't for me.  Have fun running off anyone else who dares darken this part of the forum. 

Thanks to those who took the time to stand up for what I said.

I'm not trying to run anybody off. Like I said before, you're welcome to say whatever you want, but you may not like all of the responses that you get.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Female
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #156 on: April 09, 2016, 09:57:54 AM »
Are you and Calvin the same person?  Because in that post of mine you quoted, I wasn't speaking to you.   ???

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #157 on: April 09, 2016, 09:58:02 AM »
In any of these situations, I simply feel that it should be approached exactly the same as one of her own children standing right in front of her.   Do you take that child's life?   There are lots of case by case situations.  It is not my place to choose a side in a legal matter.   I am an ambassador.   I'm only stating that "the fetus" (as you put it) is every bit as much of a life as the children she already has.   No difference.   I suppose that if it *TRULY* came down to the mothers or the child's life, I don't think that should be approached lightly.   I have heard several cases where doctors were sure the mother's life was in jeopardy, and everything turned out fine. 

If your kid was coming at you with a knife threatening your life, then I suppose you may have to make a call to defend yourself in someway.   But I absolutely 100% completely object to the idea that "the fetus" (as you put...I would say "the child") isn't every bit as much of her child as her other children.   Would she kill them in order to save her own life?   I simply make the statement that an innocent human life is involved.   
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 10:03:54 AM by jammindude »
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #158 on: April 09, 2016, 09:59:53 AM »

If birth control fails and a woman - a married woman - has a health condition making carrying to term potentially life-threatening to her, are you all for her risking her life?  How about if she has other children to take care of?


This one confuses me.  Because it seems to insinuate that we should all just be OK with any mother who doesn't risk her life for her children.   Wouldn't she risk her life for any of the other children she already has?     *WE* shouldn't have to be "for her risking her life"....I think we should all find it shocking if any mother wouldn't risk her own life for one of her children.   To me that practically defines motherhood.

I hope you were okay with my answer to that question. Sometimes if the pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, it MIGHT be more trouble than it's worth to try to keep them BOTH alive, and the "fetus" may have to be removed to save the mother's life. I'll elaborate more on that later, if necessary.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #159 on: April 09, 2016, 10:01:30 AM »
Are you and Calvin the same person?  Because in that post of mine you quoted, I wasn't speaking to you.   ???

No. I was just trying to let you know you shouldn't feel like you're being "run off." Sorry I even bothered!
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #160 on: April 09, 2016, 10:12:53 AM »
In any of these situations, I simply feel that it should be approached exactly the same as one of her own children standing right in front of her.   Do you take that child's life?   There are lots of case by case situations.  It is not my place to choose a side in a legal matter.   I am an ambassador.   I'm only stating that "the fetus" (as you put it) is every bit as much of a life as the children she already has.   No difference.   I suppose that if it *TRULY* came down to the mothers or the child's life, I don't think that should be approached lightly.   I have heard several cases where doctors were sure the mother's life was in jeopardy, and everything turned out fine. 

If your kid was coming at you with a knife threatening your life, then I suppose you may have to make a call to defend yourself in someway.   But I absolutely 100% completely object to the idea that "the fetus" (as you put...I would say "the child") is every bit as much of her child as her other children.   Would she kill them in order to save her own life?   I simply make the statement that an innocent human life is involved.

Some days I just can't WIN! I use the word baby, OTHER people get offended. I use the word fetus, YOU get offended.

I understand how you feel, Jam, but one scenario I was thinking about is: what if it IS a crisis pregnancy, and weather they save the baby or not, the mother dies, and this leaves the husband alone to raise the rest of the kids? If it was me, as horrible and devastating as it would be to lose the unborn baby, I think might have to make the choice to keep the wife around. And yes, I realize that sometimes miracles DO happen, but there might be other times when it was meant to happen (you and I might call it God's Will, but not everybody sees it that way) that the woman survives and the baby doesn't.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #161 on: April 09, 2016, 10:19:28 AM »
Using the term fetus doesn't offend me...I just wouldn't use it.  I didn't say anything beyond that. 

Not much offends me.   Telling me how I feel when you have no idea how I feel....THAT offends me.   But I'll get over it.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #162 on: April 09, 2016, 10:34:58 AM »
I get it. I don't like it when people presume to tell me what I'm thinking or how I'm feeling either.

I don't really like the word fetus anymore than you do. It just seems like a word that too many people use as an excuse to dehumanize the unborn baby.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1090
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #163 on: April 09, 2016, 12:25:57 PM »
I've looked at this thread numerous times over the past couple of days.  I try to figure out what right any have in the decision-making of those who may face this situation.  I always find it ironic when people spout off about 'individual rights', but then want to butt in and prevent a woman from controlling her body. 

It's not up to me.  It is not up to anyone that I know to say 'no, you can't' to any females in your family or inner circle, regardless of the circumstances.  Or for me to tell anyone I know what they can or cannot do.  I just wish for them to be provided with the best medical care possible....without having to go through some of these ridiculous obstacles that are being created.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #164 on: April 09, 2016, 12:38:55 PM »
Nobody said anything about any of us having the right to stop anyone from exorcising their legal right to kill an unborn baby. We are merely expressing our opinions and attempting to have a debate about it, which as far as I know is ALSO a legal right that we still have. For the moment, anyway. I'm sure they'll be coming for it soon. Hope I'm wrong...
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 01:39:13 PM by chaossystem »
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25623
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #165 on: April 09, 2016, 04:29:54 PM »
Like I said before, you're welcome to say whatever you want, but you may not like all of the responses that you get.

That goes both ways, sir.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #166 on: April 09, 2016, 08:52:31 PM »
I've looked at this thread numerous times over the past couple of days.  I try to figure out what right any have in the decision-making of those who may face this situation.  I always find it ironic when people spout off about 'individual rights', but then want to butt in and prevent a woman from controlling her body. 

It's not up to me.  It is not up to anyone that I know to say 'no, you can't' to any females in your family or inner circle, regardless of the circumstances.  Or for me to tell anyone I know what they can or cannot do.  I just wish for them to be provided with the best medical care possible....without having to go through some of these ridiculous obstacles that are being created.

To someone who views a fetus as a human person....this is exactly the same as saying we should never interfere with infanticide.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1090
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #167 on: April 09, 2016, 09:26:34 PM »
Yeah, it's absolutely the same :facepalm:


Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #168 on: April 09, 2016, 09:43:47 PM »
Yeah, it's absolutely the same :facepalm:

Not to you.  But you're certainly devaluing the huge populace of people who firmly believe that that is the case...
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2016, 04:51:25 PM »
And you, calling for mothers to put their lives ahead of a fertilized egg, are devaluing a hell of a lot of people.


If it came between my wife and her taking a pill to induce an abortion of our embryo that was fertilized 2 months prior, it's a no decision.

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2016, 06:11:15 PM »
He went much further than that.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2016, 09:24:05 PM »
Don't see how I "went further"....  I was pointing out that to many people, the fetus is the absolute equal of a baby in a crib.   Is there another definition for taking the life of a baby in a crib that I missed? 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #172 on: April 11, 2016, 08:45:35 AM »
WTF happened to this thread?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #173 on: April 11, 2016, 09:05:43 AM »
This kind of thing:

Yeah, it's absolutely the same :facepalm:

And you, calling for mothers to put their lives ahead of a fertilized egg, are devaluing a hell of a lot of people.
He went much further than that.

...needs to stop IMMEDIATELY.  Come on now.  As I often have to say here, it does not matter what your view is.  Within reason, all views can be discussed.  But this is a DISCUSSION forum.  Posts from any side that appear to simply shut down discussion and/or attack others (individually or as a group) are not welcome and will get you kicked from this forum.  That is not meant to be a threat, and it is not meant to shut down any particular side of the argument.  But this forum exists for people of all viewpoints to feel free to civilly DISCUSS their viewpoints.  Attacking people, belitting viewpoints, dismissing viewpoints rather than discussing them, etc. is not how we do things here.

Look, it goes without saying that the issues that are discussed in this subforum can be very touchy issues.  That is why there is a completely separate subforum.  This type of discussion is not for everyone.  It is natural for discussions to get heated or passionate.  It is natural, as we dig into these issues, for people on one side or the other of an issue to feel like they just cannot identify with the thinking of folks on the other side.  That's all fine.  But you must resist the temptation to post in the manner of the posts that I quoted above.  And Chaossystem, that goes for you as well--I just didn't have the time to go back and quote all of your posts where you are guilty of the exact same type of thing.  Either respond to the arguments themselves in a civil manner, or just don't hit the "post" button. 

Up until a page or so ago, this thread was doing remarkably well in terms of keeping the discussion relatively civil despite some vigorous disagreement.  Let's get back to that and keep it that way.  I don't enjoy showing people the door.  But I enjoy even less seeing threads devolve into the same type of mudslinging garbage that one might find in a YouTube comments section.  That isn't how we do things here.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #174 on: April 11, 2016, 09:47:41 AM »
And now to address some of Harmony's responses to me (sorry for the delay; like you, I was busy and mostly not on the forum this weekend). 
The fact that God forbids murdering human beings is sufficient. 

Outside of one of the 10 commandments the bible is full of god-authorized killing of humans.  Deuteronomy 13 and 17.  Exodus 31:14 says to kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath.

Correct.  But that completely misses the point of what I posted.  Not all killing is "murder."  Again, murder is the unjustified killing of one human being by another.  A soldier killing another in war does not fit the definition of murder.  Carrying out capitol punishment that is required by law does not fit the definition of murder.  Case by case, you or I may disagree over whether a particular justification should be valid.  But if the law of the land (whichever land we are talking about) provides a justification for the particular type of killing, it is not murder.  And lest we get into a discussion quibbling over the definition of murder and which types of killings in lots of other contexts should qualify and which ones should not, I don't care to go down that road and discuss various hypothetical situations that do not pertain to this topic. 

It also condones slavery...

That is a bit misleading.  It recognized (but did not promote) that certain forms of slavery existed.  None of them are really the equivalent of any form of slavery that existed in modern times.  But more importantly, that isn't really relevant to the discussion. 

It also condones...rape.

Unless you have a unique definition of "rape," I think you are mistaken.  But, again, that isn't really relevant to this topic either. 

And of course the are several verses in the bible that suggest "life" begins at first breath.  Job 33:4 is one.  Genesis 2:7 is another.

A couple of points:  First off, I don't think either of those passages really supports your point.  Job talks about God's breath giving life; it does not say anything about life beginning with a person's first breath.  The Genesis passage is similar.  Not to mention the fact that, in the context of the story, it is talking about the first two human beings in a context where neither one was "born," but they were both spontaneously created as fully-formed human beings.  So it just doesn't fit.

But second, if I can cast your point slightly differently, I think it is a fair point to say that if we are looking to what the Bible says about the specific time life begins, it isn't really clear at all.  There are passages that, to me, strongly suggest and seem to take for granted that life begins at some point in the womb.  But those passages are not addressing nor attempting to answer the question of precisely when life begins.  So the issue is concededly VERY blurry.  I think I acknowledged that in my earlier posts.  But if that was not clear, let me state it clearly here:  I acknowledge that the issues is far from clear cut and there are valid points to be raised on the other side.  I can only answer for my personal understanding of a fuzzy issue, and I'm not really attempting to do more than that.

Feel free to let this book dictate your behavior.  But please don't make it dictate mine.

Well, the way that statement is cast is a bit of a straw man argument, and I think is a bit misleading as to what the issues are.  But overlooking that, nobody in this thread is saying that anything dictates your behavior.  Again, this subforum is a place to discuss ideas and present viewpoints.  Whether one may agree with, like, or even relate to a particular viewpoint is irrelevant.  People are entitled to respectfully discuss any viewpoint here.  So as I said above, please do not post in a manner that appears designed to shut down discussion simply because you disagree with some of the views being presented.  On an issue that is as personal and that evokes as much passionate emotion as this one, that is not easy for people on any side of the issues to do, especially since it can often make people on all sides of the issues question whether they can even relate to others who hold some different views.  But if people want to post in this subforum, I have to insist that they do so civilly and, as much as possible, respectfully.

I'm not sure if I'm the only woman on this thread yet but can I just ask a couple of questions?

Do you believe if abortion were made illegal that they would stop?  If not, what do you think would be the outcome of illegal abortions?

What should happen to any woman who seeks an illegal abortion?  Jail time?  For how long?  Fines?  How much?

Who should police women's menstrual cycles to ensure no embryos were "aborted"?

If birth control fails and a woman - a married woman - has a health condition making carrying to term potentially life-threatening to her, are you all for her risking her life?  How about if she has other children to take care of?

Are politicians and participants on a message boards more qualified to care for the reproductive health of women than their doctors are?  Would you feel fine with allowing politicians to control your reproductive healthcare over your own physician?

If a woman has no interest in caring for a child and/or has a physical or mental disability and we force her to bear a child against her will that she then opts to keep vs. adopting out, what do you suppose is going to happen to that child long term?

If there are hundreds of thousands of unwanted children languishing in foster care now, who do you see stepping up to care for the unwanted offspring of these women who seek abortions today?
Those are all difficult questions.  As I think I mentioned in my couple of posts in the thread, I acknowledge that this issue raises a LOT of difficult, sensitive questions.  I don't feel equipped to come up with solutions for all the different issues that arise.  And, frankly, I am suspicious of anyone who says they have a one-size-fits-all solution.  I don't think that is possible.  When it comes right down to it, you have a lot of rights of different people that come into direct conflict with one another in any particular scenario.  A lot of the issues you raise concern the rights of the mother.  As I have said, I think those are very real and perfectly valid.  I don't mean to trivialize them.  However, again, the right of a child to live is also at stake.  And I believe that when that life is growing inside a woman, whether she wants to or not, and regardless of the circumstances in which that occurred, she is at that point not only responsible for her own life, but she has been given the responsibility for the life of another human being.  Because of that, the only way I can reconcile those conflicting rights is that, unless the mother's life itself is also in jeopardy, the child's right to live has to get bumped to the front of the line in this contest of rights.  That is where I am coming from, if that isn't clear.  As to the other issues you raise, I don't have the answers, and I'm not going to debate that those aren't valid issues as well.  They are.  And I'll just leave it at that.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."