| Author |
Topic:
Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 6:36am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
His posting style may strike some as extreme, but he is simply someone with strongly held beliefs that refuses to compromise. Given that Bush has failed to give any inch to the pro-choice viewpoint, and has indeed worked so actively to undermine a woman's right to choose, I don't think diz is being all that unreasonable.
The most vocal elements of the anti-abortion movement don't want to compromise, why should we expect the most vocal elements of the pro-choice movement to?
Compromise is a two-way street. Politics, in general, tends to be played by the extremes over the heads of the middle (famous quote, obviously not mine  ).
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 9:55am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 9:59am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
dizfactor
|
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
dizfactor posted:
It's insulting to think that we are that interested in your opinion of us, and it's naive to think that there's anything we could do to appease religious conservatives short of adopting your ideology wholesale. You can talk all you want about respecting the system and agreeing to disagree, but to be totally honest I don't feel that religious conservatives are bargaining in good faith.
Hold on a moment. You are acting as though either someone agrees with you on abortion or they are a "religious conservative". That is a false dichotomy. There are non-religious abortion opponents, for one.
Oh, come on. You're being completely disingenuous here. There's a strong correlation between Christian religious conservatism and opposition to abortion. Yes, there are non-religious abortion opponents, but they're hardly the animating core of the movement.
Espaldapalabras posted:
Diz, your attitude is just as much to blame for the political devisiveness in our society as is the extremist evangelicals.
The political divisiveness in the country isn't even close to the biggest problem we have. If fixing those more pressing problems and preventing people from doing further damage makes some enemies and causes some hard feelings in the short term, so be it.
Espaldapalabras posted:
If what you have to say is true, then democracy cannot work
Of course democracy works, just not for what people think it does. Democracy is not about people rationally weighing options and coming to informed decisions. It's about having a system of government that's fluid enough to adapt to rapid shifts in demographics and economic systems.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 11:42am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Diz posted:
If fixing those more pressing problems and preventing people from doing further damage makes some enemies and causes some hard feelings in the short term, so be it.
But you are not fixing problems in legal ways and you are preventing damage by limiting democracy. To me that sounds a lot like something an Islamic fundamentalist would say.
Yes politics is often the extremes of each end controlling the debate, but I think we can look back and blame most of the really bad decisions on some ideologue forcing their policy on everyone because they can't trust their fellow citizen enough to not do the exact opposite. And if you are at one extreme, you can only recognize the faults of the other side.
Somebody who has access to the Economist should put the whole article here because the point it makes is that abortion-rights advocates would be well served by renouncing Roe and pushing through legislation on the state level.
Do you guys not realize that once upon a time the south were a bunch of democrats until liberals overstepped their mandate and forced Roe and tried to force the ERA on an unwilling country? It was democrats that gave the policial ammuntion with which Falwell & Co turned the Evangelical Christians from a largely ignored and political inactive group into one of the most important American constituencies. If liberals had gone about things in a more slow and legal way, I don't think we would have had the rise of Conservativism. Political stragegists have recognized that it was monumental stupidity for the dems to ignore the faithfull for an entire generation.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 11:55am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
|
I don't trust southerners as a group to do the right thing. Sorry, call it bigoted if you want, but some of the most ridiculous legislation in recent years has come from states that are in the south. Granted the north has their own brand of lunacy, but nothing beats bible thumping lunacy.
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 2:02pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
dizfactor posted:
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
dizfactor posted:
It's insulting to think that we are that interested in your opinion of us, and it's naive to think that there's anything we could do to appease religious conservatives short of adopting your ideology wholesale. You can talk all you want about respecting the system and agreeing to disagree, but to be totally honest I don't feel that religious conservatives are bargaining in good faith.
Hold on a moment. You are acting as though either someone agrees with you on abortion or they are a "religious conservative". That is a false dichotomy. There are non-religious abortion opponents, for one.
Oh, come on. You're being completely disingenuous here. There's a strong correlation between Christian religious conservatism and opposition to abortion. Yes, there are non-religious abortion opponents, but they're hardly the animating core of the movement.
diz,
You've made your opinions on religious people quite clear over the years here. If anyone is being disingenuous here, it would be you. By labeling all abortion opponents as "religious conservatives", you are simply trying to dismiss any arguments that go against abortion as being religiously based, which then allows you to simply dismiss them out of hand.
You see, that absolves you of actually having to deal with the contrarian legal arguments, or the philosophical arguments, or all of the other arguments that aren't based in religion.
For example, there are quite a few people who are opposed to Roe v. Wade on the basis of it being a bad law, not supported by the Constitution, and a clear overreach of the federal government. While I am personally against abortion on an individual level, my main political opposition to abortion is based in the fact that I don't consider it something within the realm of the federal government according to the Constitution. It clearly falls under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as something that was retained by the People on the federal level, and so should be left to the states to handle according to the powers granted to them in their state constitutions. (In other words, if the people of a state want their government to be able to regulate abortion, then they need to grant that power to the government in the state constitution. Otherwise, it is left completely in the hands of the people.)
What in that argument is at all religious in nature? Not one single thing. In fact, that exact viewpoint is shared by a good number of abortion opponents. It's mostly that the media tends to focus more on the ones making the religious arguments. (For example, go read the chapter on Roe v. Wade in Men in Black by Mark Levin. Levin is a Jewish lawyer and radio host who lays out a very detailed legal argument against Roe v. Wade.)
So no, it's not disingenuous of me to point out that you are simply stereotyping your opponents as a way to dismiss their arguments without actually addressing them. It's the simple truth.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 2:10pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
|
I wouldn't exactly hold Mark Levin up as a fair or impartial author/radio personality. I've listened to him a few times and every time he has always spewed bile. Hell, even my father can't stand listening to him and he's a pretty staunch conservative.
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 2:38pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 2:40pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Kimball_Kinnison
|
Fire_Ice_Death posted:
I wouldn't exactly hold Mark Levin up as a fair or impartial author/radio personality. I've listened to him a few times and every time he has always spewed bile. Hell, even my father can't stand listening to him and he's a pretty staunch conservative.
So? I was using him as an example of an abortion opponent who has consistently presented non-religious arguments.
Since the "religious conservatives" that diz is complaining about are usually identified as Christians, and Levin is Jewish, that rather neatly demolishes diz's stereotype right there.
And if you read the actual chapter I cited, you would see that it's nothing like his radio show. He provides a wealth of sources to back up his statements.
Kimball Kinnison
EDIT: Rereading my original post, I'm wondering where you got that I ever claimed that Levin is a "fair or impartial author/radio personality"? All I said is that he is a Jewish lawyer and radio host, and that he presents a detailed legal argument against Roe v. Wade. Anything beyond that is purely what you choose to read into my statements.
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 3:11pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
|
He's Jewish and conservative so chances are his complaints come from a religious view on the matter. He may very well make a convincing argument legally, but I seriously doubt that his objections to it are based on anything regarding the law. And before you claim that that is an unfair judgment of him I've heard the **** he spews. If he's not really that way then he should never present that image. And I doubt if Roe is eventually overturned that it will stop there. Opponents of abortion will always oppose it, even if they aren't slack-jawed fundamentalists and if it's left to the states. They'll still complain and protest and kill abortion doctors. Again, giving them an inch and I'm pretty sure they'll take a mile. Besides, anti-abortionists haven't really thought out their positions that well for the day when it is made illegal.
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GenAntilles
Registered:
Jul '07
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 4:54pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Fire_Ice_Death posted:
I don't trust southerners as a group to do the right thing. Sorry, call it bigoted if you want, but some of the most ridiculous legislation in recent years has come from states that are in the south. Granted the north has their own brand of lunacy, but nothing beats bible thumping lunacy.
Except Liberal Lunatics. As someone who lives in the south I can honestly say most of us think the most ridiculous legislation has come from liberal areas.
If you want to know why the Pro-Life side or Conservatives aren't keen on giving ground just look at your arguements. For me an unborn child is a child. Abortion to me is simple murder. That is what I believe, and people have a hard time understanding why our side won't give ground. To us we're trying to save LIVES!
And that's not the only reason we don't give ground!
As people support abortion now what will they fight for 50 years from now? If an unborn child isn't a person now whose to say a mentally challenged person won't be in 50 years? Or a baby that can't take care of itself. I mean it can't talk or care for itself, it requires someone else to care for it. It's out of the womb but it's no different. Why can't we kill it now? Or a family member that's in a coma. I mean he's going to be a financial drag and maybe the family just can't afford it. He may have signed the form saying don't pull the plug but he's not a person now. So why not just pull the plug?
As the Pro-Abortion side is so keen on keeping abortion legal what's to stop them for pushing on with that kind of legislation? For people like me if somebody is willing to classify someone as a non-person and kill them what's to stop that from expanding?
-----signature-----
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire  God Bless America All Hail Pellaeon! Savior of the Empire!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 5:08pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 5:23pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Fire_Ice_Death
|
And that, kind sir, is why RvW will never be overturned.
As the Pro-Abortion side is so keen on keeping abortion legal what's to stop them for pushing on with that kind of legislation? For people like me if somebody is willing to classify someone as a non-person and kill them what's to stop that from expanding?
Common sense? You know, that whacky concept of using one's higher brain capacity?
As people support abortion now what will they fight for 50 years from now? If an unborn child isn't a person now whose to say a mentally challenged person won't be in 50 years? Or a baby that can't take care of itself. I mean it can't talk or care for itself, it requires someone else to care for it. It's out of the womb but it's no different. Why can't we kill it now? Or a family member that's in a coma. I mean he's going to be a financial drag and maybe the family just can't afford it. He may have signed the form saying don't pull the plug but he's not a person now. So why not just pull the plug?
Do you really not see the differences in situations or are you deliberately being obtuse?
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GenAntilles
Registered:
Jul '07
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 5:45pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 5:45pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
GenAntilles
|
Common sense? You know, that whacky concept of using one's higher brain capacity?
100 years ago they said common sense would prevent abortion.
And no I don't see the situations as being different. A person now may not be considered a person in a few years if certain people keep feeling they can decide who is and who isn't a person.
200 years ago if someone asked if an unborn child was a person only the village loon would say no. Now more than half would say an unborn child isn't a person. Another hundred years the village loon may not be a 'person' anymore.
-----signature-----
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire God Bless America All Hail Pellaeon! Savior of the Empire!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 5:56pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 5:57pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Fire_Ice_Death
|
100 years ago they said common sense would prevent abortion.
Did they? I guess humans were closer to god then or something. The main reason for being against abortion 100 years ago was because it was unsafe. Not because god told them that it was wrong.
And no I don't see the situations as being different. A person now may not be considered a person in a few years if certain people keep feeling they can decide who is and who isn't a person.
Truly astounding. I always thought that human thought could be nuanced in everyone...until now. Stunning.
200 years ago if someone asked if an unborn child was a person only the village loon would say no. Now more than half would say an unborn child isn't a person. Another hundred years the village loon may not be a 'person' anymore.
Amazing that in 200 years people advanced in medicine, abortions became safer, people became more knowledgeable, and myths are being relegated to fairy tales instead of being taken as fact. Ah, I love the 21st century. Imagine this, humans improve their conditions and adapt to new technologies, isn't that fascinating?
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GenAntilles
Registered:
Jul '07
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 6:17pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Did they? I guess humans were closer to god then or something. The main reason for being against abortion 100 years ago was because it was unsafe. Not because god told them that it was wrong.
Notice I did not mention God or religion as a reason. And most people back then did think the unborn child was a child.
Truly astounding. I always thought that human thought could be nuanced in everyone...until now. Stunning.
I ask you this what makes a person a person? Is it the ability to talk? The ability to think? The ability to move? A child just out of the womb is no different than what it was when it was in the womb. When people feel they can say what is and isn't a person they will continue to pass judgement to make their lives easier.
Amazing that in 200 years people advanced in medicine, abortions became safer, people became more knowledgeable, and myths are being relegated to fairy tales instead of being taken as fact. Ah, I love the 21st century. Imagine this, humans improve their conditions and adapt to new technologies, isn't that fascinating?
Yes just like the great scientists 2000 years ago told everyone the Earth was flat. Perhaps in the 22nd century technology will advance to where we can tell who will be problems for society and kill them before they are born. Or we can have technology that will allow people to think only what they should think. Ah yes technology and human advancemet, everytime we discover we can do something it means we should do it. I mean all those things would make the world more efficient and safer.
Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it.
-----signature-----
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire God Bless America All Hail Pellaeon! Savior of the Empire!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 6:40pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 6:44pm (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Fire_Ice_Death
|
Notice I did not mention God or religion as a reason. And most people back then did think the unborn child was a child.
Oh, I noticed, but I tend to take the view that anyone that can believe a clump of cells is a person must either be religious or religiously tainted. That or they're patently crazy. 
I ask you this what makes a person a person? Is it the ability to talk? The ability to think? The ability to move? A child just out of the womb is no different than what it was when it was in the womb. When people feel they can say what is and isn't a person they will continue to pass judgement to make their lives easier.
Well, there are four factors in being a person to me: self-awareness, being outside of the womb, and being fully developed physically or at least mostly developed, and being able to communicate. You can get rid of awareness and the ability to communicate and still be a person. However, being outside of the womb and fully developed are a necessity in personhood.
Yes just like the great scientists 2000 years ago told everyone the Earth was flat. Perhaps in the 22nd century technology will advance to where we can tell who will be problems for society and kill them before they are born. Or we can have technology that will allow people to think only what they should think. Ah yes technology and human advancemet, everytime we discover we can do something it means we should do it. I mean all those things would make the world more efficient and safer.
Most discoveries make life better for everyone involved. If we went by those standards you’re putting up nothing would get done. Or we’d have endless committees setup just to decide whether we should do something. I don’t think the calculator would get by anyone in that sort of world.
Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it.
Brilliant philosophy there. Your cunning plan has a flaw: Who decides what is right and what is not?
EDIT: Please don't bore me with that appeal to democracy, "Well, the people decide what is right." According to most Americans (56% IIRC) they support abortion.
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GenAntilles
Registered:
Jul '07
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 7:33pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Oh, I noticed, but I tend to take the view that anyone that can believe a clump of cells is a person must either be religious or religiously tainted. That or they're patently crazy.
So you're not a person? After all what are we but a clump of cells?
Well, there are four factors in being a person to me: self-awareness, being outside of the womb, and being fully developed physically or at least mostly developed, and being able to communicate. You can get rid of awareness and the ability to communicate and still be a person. However, being outside of the womb and fully developed are a necessity in personhood.
A person to me is anyone with the potential to be a person. If you have the chance to be a person you are a person to me. But I ask you, if you take a baby out of the womb it becomes a person right? So even if the umbilical cord is still attached it's a person, it just has to be out of the mother? So one second it's not a person and just becuase it moves a few inches it suddenly becomes a person?
Most discoveries make life better for everyone involved. If we went by those standards you’re putting up nothing would get done. Or we’d have endless committees setup just to decide whether we should do something. I don’t think the calculator would get by anyone in that sort of world.
Discoveries like chemical and nuclear weapons. Yes those all made life so much better for everyone.  Yes chemicals and nuclear energy are useful but does that mean everyone one of their uses is? If technology can harm people it should be used very carefully. And I've yet to see a calculater kill someone.
Brilliant philosophy there. Your cunning plan has a flaw: Who decides what is right and what is not?
We decide the same way we decided murder was wrong. The same way we decided rape was wrong. The same way we decided stealing was wrong. The same way we decided lying was wrong.
-----signature-----
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire God Bless America All Hail Pellaeon! Savior of the Empire!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
