Abortion and Morality

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.

Don't hold back, Pale, I hate to see a man who is constipated.

I know that you hate men, and you hate me and apparently you hate catholics as well. Unfourtunately, I am not catholic, know nothing of catholic doctrine and have no interest in it.

I don't hate men, I don't even hate you. I do think you are a short-sighted misogynist though who lets his emotional feelings about "innocent babies" run over the top of his intellect. I once read a book about Catholic martyrs, I was really impressed with the sacrifices that they made and I always thought it was too bad that more Catholics didn't behave that way.

If I had ment to talk about souls, I would have said souls. Unlike you, I think very carefully about what I am going to say before I say it. My emotions do not rule my intellect. I made no suggestion that our lives are sacred and that other life is profane. More of your imagination.

Horse puckey! You've been very careful to make sure that we all knew you were a laboratory kind of guy with no religious leanings, but despite that you are talking Catholic dogma--like it or not. Sacred and profane are not being used in the religious sense here, you made us sacred with your special "spark" denotation, profane simply means not having that "spark". You reinforce that definition by granting intrinsic value to human life (probably not mine, but most others except the ones you wish to torture) while granting only utilitarian value to all other lives. Very Christian, very human, very Catholic, and very common.

Actually mare, the food chain separates us from the other animals. We happen to be at the top. Nothing religious there. Your fixation on catholics and your obvious hatred for men has rendered you unable to effectively participate in a conversation.

We are at the top of the food chain because of the belief in the philosophy of Might is Right, we are at the top of the food chain because we CAN be. We are also the only animal (as far as we know) who can choose to be at the top and prey on all others or deliberately eat lower on the food chain in order to minimize our impact on the environment and to reduce the suffering of others. You probably don't agree with that either, which is also in line with the Christian religion and especially the Catholics.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

When you look back at what women had to go through before Roe v. Wade you see terrible cases of exploitation by men over their pregnant girlfriends and wives. You'd see "coat hanger" self abortions and unqualified doctors doing just unspeakably bad & dangerous procedures off the books for big money. A totally unregulated and unstoppable underground practice that preyed on women in a very venerable position.

You'd even see rampant examples where churches talked emotionally venerable women out of abortions and into church run birth & adoption services where the church actually SOLD many newborns to totally unscreened people... just because they had the money.

As you look at countries like China that allowed their population get so out of control that now they have to enforce a one child limit on families and have even went to the extremes of forced serialization of those who break this rule... it's apparent the effect overpopulation can have.

One can even go someplace as close as the many, many huge orphanages in Mexico (a place I and my wife's family visit often and donate time & money) you see the reality of thousands and thousands of unwanted and abandoned children in the poorest of conditions.

It's not a perfect world and hopefully some day birth control will reach a point where there's 100% birth control protection that does not leave a woman incapable of conceiving should she want children sometime later on.

I've never seen anyone jumping up and down saying abortion is great. It's just not like that at all. I'd say one should try to avoid that situation at all cost. But at the end of the day it all goes back to the woman and what decision she chooses to make and we owe a debt of thanks to the Supreme Court Justices that made the difficult but right decision in the long standing Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

A thoughtful and considered piece of writing. I agree with you, Topgun, the issue cannot and should not be reduced to a chant of "convenience, convenience" with the blame laid on women. Both you and vyo have shown a willingness to look at the broader and more painful truth of the systemic nature of this problem. Thank you.

 

[palerider]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

The problem with public boards is that anyone can answer. Convenience means what convenience means. I have challenged you to list some reasons for aborting a child other than a risk to the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience. So far, you haven't listed any.

Why women have abortions has been a topic of serious study for decades now. Unsurprisingly, the reasons, or the percentages of women who list said reasons don't change much from year to year. Here is a typical set of findings for why women kill their unborn children.

timing is wrong - 21% (convenience)

can't afford a baby now - 27% (convenience)

other people depending on me - 8% (convenience)

don't want to be a single mother - 6% (convenience)

don't feel mature enough - 7% (convenience)

child would interfere with education or career plans - 29% (convenience)

About 2% list genuine health problems

less than .1% list rape or incest

Face it. Women kill their children because the are not convenient.

 

[palerider]

That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves?

More dishonesty. They are human beings. Not "clumps of cells" If your position is so distasteful to you that you can't even speak of it in honest terms, you really should re examine it.

 

[palerider]

I don't hate men, I don't even hate you. I do think you are a short-sighted misogynist though who lets his emotional feelings about "innocent babies" run over the top of his intellect. I once read a book about Catholic martyrs, I was really impressed with the sacrifices that they made and I always thought it was too bad that more Catholics didn't behave that way.

Of course you do. It is evident in every word you write. Go back through our posts mare and tell me who is emotional. I am so unemotional that I have been called "cold" and you yourself acused me of being emotionless. Now you claim that my emotions run over my intellect. You are one of the most basicly dishonest people I have come across mare. You simply fabricate whatever you need at a particular moment to make a point.

Horse puckey! You've been very careful to make sure that we all knew you were a laboratory kind of guy with no religious leanings, but despite that you are talking Catholic dogma--like it or not. Sacred and profane are not being used in the religious sense here, you made us sacred with your special "spark" denotation, profane simply means not having that "spark". You reinforce that definition by granting intrinsic value to human life (probably not mine, but most others except the ones you wish to torture) while granting only utilitarian value to all other lives. Very Christian, very human, very Catholic, and very common.

More lies mare. While I am a laboratory kind of guy (science is how I make my living) I have never said that I don't have religious leanings. I simply keep my religious beliefs out of the discussion when logic and fact will do the job better. If my position sounds like catholic dogma to you, then you might consider that the catholics sound like scientists.

We are at the top of the food chain because of the belief in the philosophy of Might is Right, we are at the top of the food chain because we CAN be.

There is nothing philosophical about the food chain mare. We are at the top of the food chain because we are the most highly developed predator on the face of the earth. One can philosophize about the fact that we know it and understand the consequences of our actions, but there is nothing philosophical about our position on the food chain. We are at the top of the food chain not because we can be but because we ARE. If we ate nothing but vegetables, we would remain at the top of the food chain because we would still be the top predator on the planet, we would have just chosen to eat vegetables.

We are also the only animal (as far as we know) who can choose to be at the top and prey on all others or deliberately eat lower on the food chain in order to minimize our impact on the environment and to reduce the suffering of others. You probably don't agree with that either, which is also in line with the Christian religion and especially the Catholics.

No. We don't choose to be at the top. That is just where we are. And if you think that sounds religious, I would suggest that for some very strange reason, you are unable to differentiate between science and religion. I don't think I have ever encountered anyone else who couldn't tell science from religion.

 

[top gun]

The problem with public boards is that anyone can answer.

I will take your lack of understanding of the English language "not to Palerider" along with your total misunderstanding of women's issues and add that to the Internet bully impression I think many already have.

Rape is not convenience. Incest is not convenience. Life or health of the mother is not convenience. Knowing a child's life would be hell with the current situation is not convenience. And forcing a women or a doctor to lie to the test to get a medical procedure done that's been legal now for decades even if it were for convenience solves no problem at all.

 

[top gun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by palerider
I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.

Mare Tranquillity;18373]Don't hold back, Pale, I hate to see a man who is constipated.

Mare how dare you! You must be a "stupid woman". How could a woman possibly relate to women's issues in any way? Has it not long ago been documented that women actually enjoy being abused , dominated and controlled by men and are much healthier when men tell them what is best for them? I mean come on now... you know things went straight downhill as soon as we gave you the right to vote. Then you wanted control over the interworkings of your body. It's all been just a mess! Having a voice is not your place.

If you would please shut up and just put your burka back on I think we would all be a lot happier.

Well maybe not all of us.

Well maybe one of us.

But not me... you go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Coyote]

People and animals may be different, we don't know much about the inner lives of the other creatures with brains as large and complex as our own--cetaceans. What I object to is the automatic assumption of our superiority and thus our right to use all other creatures as we see fit.

Yes...and there I agree with you. We - the human race - have been given or achieved - a rare gift of insight and power. Because of this we have the ability to affect the happiness and wellbeing of other living creatures (not my words, but someone else's). This is a tremendous responsibility. We also live within a complex chain of life - not outside of it, as some might wish to believe. We are predators - we are designed by nature or God, to be efficient omnivores and to deny that is to deny our biology. But to deny our responsibility towards other life is to deny our humanity and what seperates us from any other animal.

That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves? I don't buy it. I was just reading a piece about rats and they have discovered that rats can understand consequences and plan things out in advance to accomplish complex goals. No one ever suspected that they were that smart just like no one realized that chimps made and used tools.

I understand and respect Pale's view -his logic is sound - he is always consistent because every single argument comes down to the right to life as legally defined in this country, comes first. I don't totally agree because I have trouble seeing a clump of cells with no brain or neurons as a person more worthy of preserving then a dolphin....it is not an easy issue and I'll admit, this debate has forced me to rethink some things and has caused me consertation with both consistency and the clash of what I feel is the my right to make decisions over my own body.

What is also interesting in what you say is that the more we learn about other species, the more we have to change the definition of what it is to be human!

It's a wonderful world - we should treat it with respect and not destruction.

 

[palerider]

Rape is not convenience. Incest is not convenience.

OK. That covers about 0.1% of abortions and the health of the mother might cover about 2% more. The other 97.9% of abortions are for reasons that amount to convenience.

Life or health of the mother is not convenience. Knowing a child's life would be hell with the current situation is not convenience. And forcing a women or a doctor to lie to the test to get a medical procedure done that's been legal now for decades even if it were for convenience solves no problem at all.

Not wanting to care for a handicapped child is a matter of convenience for its mother. Oddly enough, the suicide rate among the handicapped is lower than among the general population indicating that life with a handicap is not "hell" as you would like to believe.

People who lie in order to kill others are criminals and should be dealt with very harshly.

 

[palerider]

What is also interesting in what you say is that the more we learn about other species, the more we have to change the definition of what it is to be human!

Magical thinking. When we learn something new about another species, the definition of what it means to be a member of that species changes, not the definition of what it means to be a human. We are what we are regardless of what we learn about other species.

 

[Coyote]

Magical thinking. When we learn something new about another species, the definition of what it means to be a member of that species changes, not the definition of what it means to be a human. We are what we are regardless of what we learn about other species.

Nope, not magical. Perhaps I should reword it: The more we learn about other species, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

We have historically defined our species by what it is or does that no other species does.

What seperates us from other species is more then just genetics.

 

[palerider]

Nope, not magical. Perhaps I should reword it: The more we learn about other species, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

We have historically defined our species by what it is or does that no other species does.

What seperates us from other species is more then just genetics.

If we learned that on saturday nights chimps go deep into the forest to smoke cigars, play calypso music and play poker we might have to redefine what it means to be a chimp, but what humans are would remain the same.

 

[top gun]

palerider;18424]OK. That covers about 0.1% of abortions and the health of the mother might cover about 2% more. The other 97.9% of abortions are for reasons that amount to convenience.

Not so. First you can only guess the numbers by going by "reported" cases of rape & incest. And you've already said you make NO allowance for either of those circumstances in any case. Furthermore forcing someone to lie that they were raped by a stranger solves nothing.

Not wanting to care for a handicapped child is a matter of convenience for its mother. Oddly enough, the suicide rate among the handicapped is lower than among the general population indicating that life with a handicap is not "hell" as you would like to believe.

How can you possibly say that? You're no kind of a mind reader? Perhaps they know they can't properly take care of an infants needs for some legitimate reason. Perhaps they fear for the condition of or the suffering of the infant. This is just... I know better than the woman in the situation BS and you know it. Totally subjective.

And as far as not wanting to bear a handicapped child that without doubt should be left up to the mother and the family involved. Once again your attempt to promote that the state would somehow be the arbiter of this and not the woman, her family and her doctor is dictatorial and shows a great disrespect for women.

When we talk about quality of life there are reams of statistics on children and young adults in prison, alcohol and drug addicted children, and children living in almost third world conditions due to severe poverty due to unintended pregnancies and single parent homes. Those are the suicide rates and other statistics that apply. The same children that anti-choice advocates scream so loftily about are the very same children no one wants to pay for. So in that way it's "society" that doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

People who lie in order to kill others are criminals and should be dealt with very harshly.

Well of course we don't agree on the "personhood" issue. I'm with the United States Supreme Court interpretation and decades of precedent. But besides that setting up a system that would encourage women to lie about being raped by an unknown assailant only makes a bad situation much worse. Arresting and jailing millions of women in a futile attempt to legislate morality just won't ever fly in the United States of America.

 

[palerider]

Not so. First you can only guess the numbers by going by "reported" cases of rape & incest. And you've already said you make NO allowance for either of those circumstances in any case. Furthermore forcing someone to lie that they were raped by a stranger solves nothing.

So you are saying that you base your position on "unreported" cases? You have just made up whatever number you need to justify your position?

How can you possibly say that? You're no kind of a mind reader? Perhaps they know they can't properly take care of an infants needs for some legitimate reason. Perhaps they fear for the condition of or the suffering of the infant. This is just... I know better than the woman in the situation BS and you know it. Totally subjective.

How can you possibly say otherwise. You are no kind of mind reader either. Face it, killing a child because it isn't "perfect" is not only for the mother's convenience but monstrous as well.

And as far as not wanting to bear a handicapped child that without doubt should be left up to the mother and the family involved. Once again your attempt to promote that the state would somehow be the arbiter of this and not the woman, her family and her doctor is dictatorial and shows a great disrespect for women.

You have made yourself clear. Kill them if they aren't perfect. Well, actually, your position is kill them for whatever reason you care to make up and you will support them.

Tell me, how are you with killing them because they are the wrong sex? If we find a genetic component for homosexuality, will you be ok with screening homosexuals from the population before they are ever born?

When we talk about quality of life there are reams of statistics on children and young adults in prison, alcohol and drug addicted children, and children living in almost third world conditions due to severe poverty due to unintended pregnancies and single parent homes.

That is a personal responsibility issue and in no way justifies killing innocent human beings.

Well of course we don't agree on the "personhood" issue. I'm with the United States Supreme Court interpretation and decades of precedent. But besides that setting up a system that would encourage women to lie about being raped by an unknown assailant only makes a bad situation much worse. Arresting and jailing millions of women in a futile attempt to legislate morality just won't ever fly in the United States of America.

The court said that if personhood were ever established, the framework of roe would fail. There is an ever growing precedent for the personhood of the unborn. And your assumption that "most" women would break the law and have an abortion anyway is specious at best. When an activity is illegal, the vast majority obey the law. It was true before roe and it is still true today.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course you do. It is evident in every word you write. Go back through our posts mare and tell me who is emotional. I am so unemotional that I have been called "cold" and you yourself acused me of being emotionless. Now you claim that my emotions run over my intellect. You are one of the most basicly dishonest people I have come across mare. You simply fabricate whatever you need at a particular moment to make a point.

I have to admit that at first I took you seriously, but you calling me a liar all the time and misquoting me has become such a farce that I often laugh out loud while reading your posts. You ARE an interesting dichotomy of soulless coldness as you advocate chopping people limb from limb to tear the secrets--that you believe they have--out of them. You present yourself as being almost sharklike--a compassionless torturing machine. On the other hand you are sooooooooooo! wrapped up in your emotional involvement with fetuses that you are practically bleeding through the eyes. It's an interesting combination. Around abortion your emotions run over your intellect like a bus over a ground squirrel. Don't feel bad though, no one is really consistent all the time--women are often accused of being fickle so I guess we can cut you a little slack for being so too.

More lies mare. While I am a laboratory kind of guy (science is how I make my living) I have never said that I don't have religious leanings. I simply keep my religious beliefs out of the discussion when logic and fact will do the job better. If my position sounds like catholic dogma to you, then you might consider that the catholics sound like scientists.

For many scientists, science is a religion with just as much dogma as any church. Your religious beliefs come out in what you advocate despite your attempts to "keep" them out of the discussion. Your adherence to the "spark" that makes us different from animals is without scientific proof. Coyote is right, as we discover things about animals we have to define ourselves differently. At one time we were the only tool-using animal, but when we discovered that chimps made tools and used them we had to find another way to define our superiority. We were the only animal with language, then we were the only animal that laughed, and the list went on and on. Each time we discover that animals are more like us than we used to think, we come up with a new definition to make ourselves special. Do you sacrifice animals in your laboratory?

There is nothing philosophical about the food chain mare. We are at the top of the food chain because we are the most highly developed predator on the face of the earth. One can philosophize about the fact that we know it and understand the consequences of our actions, but there is nothing philosophical about our position on the food chain. We are at the top of the food chain not because we can be but because we ARE. If we ate nothing but vegetables, we would remain at the top of the food chain because we would still be the top predator on the planet, we would have just chosen to eat vegetables.

There is nothing philosophical about anything to those who can't recognize philosophy. There are none so blind as those who will not see. We could choose to be the most developed predator on Earth or we could choose not to, fear drives most of us to be as powerful as we can be. Our choices make us what we are.

No. We don't choose to be at the top. That is just where we are. And if you think that sounds religious, I would suggest that for some very strange reason, you are unable to differentiate between science and religion. I don't think I have ever encountered anyone else who couldn't tell science from religion.

Well, you don't seem to be doing too good a job of it. Special Spark Pale sounds pretty Catholic in his pronouncements and attitudes. It tickles me to think that you may very well be concealing your Catholicism because you don't want to admit where your combination of compassion and violence comes from.

But I'm just a woman, what could I know--shoot, the Catholic church used to maintain that we didn't even have souls. I don't hate you, Pale, you're too much fun to hate. For me, you have become an interesting specimen. There is a wonderful "smiley" action figure that illustrates how I feel about you, it's a little yellow person using a stick to tentatively poke at a nondescript lump on the ground. No hate, Pale, disgust with your blind misogyny, yes, disappointment at your shortsightedness, yes, but no hate. Thanks for writing, it's good to see that you aren't constipated.