Abortion: Murder

[robnibg]

Cool! I hope your daughter gets to make that decision rather than you telling her what to do though!

 

Who are *you* to say that it is the daughter's choice only?

[Buffy]

Who are *you* to say that it is the daughter's choice only?

Who are *you* to say that its not?

 

Welcome to Ineffective Rhetoric 101,

Buffy

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Buffy,

 

I distinctly remember you using the phrase "who are *you* to say" against me earlier. What's good for the goose... You shouldn't take the subject so seriously. If you are too biased, it makes you look ignorant and weakens your defense.

[Buffy]

I distinctly remember you using the phrase "who are *you* to say" against me earlier. What's good for the goose...

You misunderstood the context!

 

In the case above, the point is that deciding the "number of allowable abortions" is completely undecidable and arbitrary. That is, that there's no logical or moral basis--not only for you but for *anyone else*--to be able to say what the number ought to be.

 

In the case of this most recent post, it appears from the context to be an argument that the black and white decision about "should a woman have the exclusive right to choose" has no moral or logical basis, which is a pretty difficult position to defend. Without any contextual argument though, it simply comes across as "I can't justify it but I think you're wrong and I'm going to accuse you of having an immoral opinion." Either way you interpret it, it is ineffective rhetoric.

 

This just goes to show that its dangerous to take statements out of context, but when there is no context its a much easier target! :)

You shouldn't take the subject so seriously. If you are too biased, it makes you look ignorant and weakens your defense.

If you want to laugh and make jokes about it or engage in troll-like behavior, that's your business--but don't expect that to go without consequences! You're even welcome to call me "biased" and "ignorant" if you wish, but that's not effective rhetoric either!

 

Look! Its Halley's Comet! :)

Buffy

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I neither called you ignorant or biased, read again.

 

You are saying that I am making the claim "I can't justify it but I think you're wrong and I'm going to accuse you of having an immoral opinion."

 

I can justify every reason I have against killing anything. And i never said you were wrong, and I am definitly not accusing you of having an immoral opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. But it is still that, your opinion.

 

You seem to forget that others see you as making the same claim "I can't justify it but I think your wrong and I'm going to accuse you of having an irrational opinion." Remember, opinion and rational are relative.

 

I have only attempted to push the debate. Don't judge me and I won't judge you.

[Buffy]

I neither called you ignorant or biased, read again.

You're right. You only said that "If you are too biased, it makes you look ignorant and weakens your defense." Glad to see you agree that I'm not biased then!

You are saying that I am making the claim "I can't justify it but I think you're wrong and I'm going to accuse you of having an immoral opinion."

Actually no, this was in direct reference to what robnibg said, and only as a possible alternative interpretation: there may be others, and if there were more context surrounding robnibg's post there might be some clarity on the matter.

 

This statement was couched in the same sort of terms that you've used to establish that you didn't call me ignorant or biased, so I'll agree that you weren't, asking in return that you might consider that its not what I said, and moreover it wasn't all about you!

 

Push away!

 

I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents, :)

Buffy

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Fair enough. Let's leave this quarrel behind.

 

There are studies for and against abortion. Both sides are heavily biased, which is inevitable in a touchy subject like this. But the studies are never the less for the most part valid. This is an issue of opinion. But the law says it is legal, so until that changes, I won't contest it, unless I am asked my opinion. I don't agree with the law, but I don't agree with any unnecessary conflict. I think abortion is wrong because it is preventing a possible life. And I don't consider some of the absurdities stated earlier in this thread as "life".

Just as I am not right just because I think I am, neither is the other side.

 

 

This is all I meant to say when this began, and I apologize. I took some of things you said personal and it caused me to say things that weren't necessary.

[CraigD]

I think abortion is wrong because it is preventing a possible life.

This is, IMO, one of the most rational anti-abortion rationales, in greatest part because it doesn’t presuppose the truth of any religious dogma or sentiment. Implicit in it is the assumption that, “more [human life] is better” – that is, that it is better for more humans to live, with fewer resources available to each of them, than for fewer humans to live, with more resources available to each of them. This assumption is in turn supported by a “catastrophic” model of the advancement of humankind – that humankind advances in jumps due to the actions of a few extraordinary individual – and that the probability that a single individual is such an individual is largely unpredictable and not proportional to population size and/or available resources – in short, that the more people live, the more extraordinary people will appear to advance humankind. Although I’m unaware of any well-controlled empirical or theoretical validation of such a model, I’m also unaware of any invalidating it.

 

Of concern to me, however, is the rational implication of the “more is better” position. Worldwide, abortion accounts for only a small fraction of the reduction in population growth, compared to contraception and the legal emancipation of women. The greatest reproductive rates are historically and arguably associated with societies in which women do not have the legal right to avoid pregnancy, either by having abortions, using contraception, or simply refusing to have reproductive sex. Thus, the position is a rationale not only to prohibit abortion, but to prohibit contraception, and limit the legal rights of women.

 

I find this implication abhorrent.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Thus, the position is a rationale not only to prohibit abortion, but to prohibit contraception, and limit the legal rights of women.

 

Gasp!

 

For reals?

 

TFS

[robnibg]

Who are *you* to say that its not?

 

If it just her choice, then does that mean she has a right to do whatever she wants to her children? roll_eyes

[Pyrotex]

The more extreme anti-abortion folks here in America are beginning to be very hard to distinguish from the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both groups want women's rights reduced down to the level of, say..., "furniture".

 

"...you say those snacks come in gray AND green?" :evil:

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I have to say that was a radical comment about the radicals of this country.

[TheFaithfulStone]

[wail]

Why can't I leave this kind of stuff alone??!

[/wail]

 

If it just her choice, then does that mean she has a right to do whatever she wants to her children? roll_eyes

 

If you get to help her choose, does that mean you also get to take a measure of responsibility for the choice? That is - you wholeheartedly support S-Chip, WIC, Welfare, Jobs Programs, Head Start, Free Lunch, Gubmint Cheese, and basically any social program this child you're so insistent somebody else bring into the world needs?

 

Cause if you don't, doesn't it kind of back you into the uncomfortable position of using babies as a means of punishing people for having sex?

 

TFS

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

So girl below the poverty level gets pregnant. Abortion is a way to alieviate herself of the responsibility of having to raise a child. Social programs also alieviate her from the costs by creating more taxes. My question is this: Why aren't we trying to alieviate the responsibility of the men?

[Zythryn]

My question is this: Why aren't we trying to alieviate the responsibility of the men?

 

Alieviate men's responsibility?!?

Heck, that has been alieviated for all time. If a man doesn't want the responsibility he walks out on the woman. It is just recently that the man hasn't been 100% scot free.

Now don't get me wrong, I am a man, and I would hope that men would not run out on their responsibilities. But I have seen it happen far too often:naughty:

[CraigD]

So girl below the poverty level gets pregnant. Abortion is a way to alieviate herself of the responsibility of having to raise a child. Social programs also alieviate her from the costs by creating more taxes.

I’m confused by these statements. ISEM, are you suggesting that, in the United States, federal or state taxes are used to provide women with abortion services?

 

Although I’m familiar only with the public laws of the US and the states of MD, VA, WV, and the District of Columbia, to my knowledge this is not true anywhere in the US. Financial assistance for women wishing to have abortions but unable to afford them is provided by privately supported charities such as the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood. Thus, abortions for women eligible for state-funded child welfare programs actually reduce the amount of public money they receive.

 

From the scientific public health perspective, the best way to reduce the public and private cost associated with the support of pregnant women and children unable to financially support themselves is to provide education about and pay for ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy, primarily contraception. Although federally funded sex education programs stressing “abstinence only” have recently been increased (from less $9,000,000/year prior to 1997 to $176,000,000/year in 2007), the efficacy of these programs is controversial (source: The History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding). In my opinion and that of the health care organization by whom I’m employed, this federal health care policy has been a net detriment to public health, not only due to pregnancy and childhood, but due to sexually transmitted disease.

 

Although to my knowledge the argument that increased education in and access to contraception reduces the percentage of pregnancies terminated by therapeutic abortion is not compellingly supported by well controlled statistics, I am personally convinced that it does.

[Pyrotex]

Is it just me? Is it just my imagination?

I keep getting this nagging feeling that the men most vehemently opposed to abortion are the kind of men least likely to be able to attract the kind of woman who wants to settle down and raise a family. Grid knows I could be wrong, but it seems to me sometimes that these men want to turn women (and specifically, their wombs) into "property", because maybe, that's the only way they'll ever gain access to one.

 

As always, I express merely my humble and imperfect opinion, Grid forgive me.