Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Katana_Geldar, Nov 18, 2012.
Yes, OZK is pretty hardcore. Welcome to the JC.
Yeah, I think this is where the jokes about the Catholic mom leaving the church pew and the dad bringing up the rear five minutes later, come in.
No way can I wrap my brain around the idea that every act of sex must be open to pregnancy. Absolutely no way.
OZK's not hardcore. His views are just the logical conclusion of biblical teachings which are stone age-like and all that good ****.
I would argue that there is a difference between the morality of every act of sex being open to pregnancy, and whether or not it is moral to terminate a pregnancy once it has started.
It's one thing to take steps to prevent the creation of a new life*. It's another thing entirely to willfully destroy it once it has been created, even if it wasn't desired in the first place.
As I said before, especially during the early weeks and months of a pregnancy, we can debate exactly where and what the balance is between the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby. But I find the attitude that completely ignores the rights of the baby, and treats it as though it isn't alive until it's actually born, morally reprehensible. What is the difference between my son (born the day after his due date at a full 40 weeks and one day) and my daughter (born one week before her due date at 39 weeks)? Both of them at birth were almost perfectly healthy (excepting a minor respiratory infection my son had). What is the difference between either of them and my nephew, who was born 10 weeks premature (at 30 weeks)? Developmentally, he continued on the same path of development in those following weeks that my own kids followed while still in their mother's womb. Was my nephew a person at 30 weeks, but my son not a person at 40 weeks (the day before he was born)?
And if my nephew was a person at 30 weeks, what about a baby born at 24 weeks (the point of a 50% survival probability)? What about the moment before that, or the moment before that? None of us can definitively say what the moment is that a fetus becomes a person (even though we can say when we definitely know that they are one). Any argument that can't at least recognize that uncertainty and address it is fatally flawed**.
* Again, as I said earlier, even a zygote or embryo is undeniably alive. You may not consider it a person with full rights yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a new life, and a human one at that.
** As I said earlier, this doesn't include cases where the life of the mother is at stake, or where there are serious health issues involved. In those cases, the same standard as self-defense would apply, even if the baby is already considered a person.
It's just official Catholic doctrine.
(Even though the majority of people who identify as Catholic disagree with it)
I've noticed that it's generally the 'born again' Catholics who are the most hard core. From what I've observed, those who were raised Catholic aren't quite so intense.
I agree completely, which is why it seems to me that the people who are most opposed to abortion, should be the fiercest advocates for the most access to birth control. Nothing prevents abortion like prevention of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
To me, viability is the line I draw between being pro-choice and being pro-life. I'm only in favor of abortion "on demand" for the first trimester or so, definitely no later than 20 weeks. After that I'd say we need to be looking at extenuating circumstances far beyond "I don't want this baby after all."
A recent FB update of his wanting to gather together catholic doctors to practise within the tenets of their faith got me shuddering. It got quite a few likes.
this is true of any religion and atheists as well. adult converts to any cultural identity group tend to be the hard cases. the obvious answer is that it has something to do with them feeling like they have something to prove. the more interesting possibility is that they just tend not to learn the "soft" elements of the religion that might be mitigating. for instance with years and years of childhood observation of peers within your religious group, you get a different perspective on a religion than some guy who grew up in a different group and got all his education about his current religion from a book or from talking to (over)-trained members of the clergy. you might pick up on some unspoken "outs" as to what is acceptable behaviour within that group that an adult convert would have no way of learning
With "born-again" atheists I thought it was more a frustration at being "wrong" and being taught the "wrong thing." I mean, unlike Catholicism or whatever, there's no atheist doctrine to strictly adhere to.
there may not be a doctrine per se, but there is ABSOLUTELY a culture, (much of it centered right here on the internet)
Yes, I've seen /r/atheism.
lmao i have not. never laid eyes on reddit directly
but that's not the point. basically look at it as a culture, not just a religion. after all, religions are just the most ossified valence of culture
The point is, it's all about risk/benefit.
I take Humira for Crohn's disease, and I made a conscious choice to accept the risks that come with the drug because I felt they outweighed the risk of having uncontrolled inflammatory bowel disease. Having been through one surgery, I'm trying to minimize the chances I will need another.
I'm very concerned about the risk for lymphoma, but uncontrolled systemic inflammation poses a similar risk. I had a wicked case of shingles last year due to the immunosuppression, but I elected to remain on the drug. The 'risks' of birth-control pills are not unique to this particular class of medications, and require no special level of consent to use. TNF-inhibitors such as Humira can do far worse things to a body than hormonal contraceptives, yet they are still available as prescribed. One medication here is not more of a 'poison' than the other.
I would also like to point out that we swim in a sea of toxins which are perfectly legal and are of no health benefit, tobacco being the most obvious example.
I have fibromyalgia and I have chosen not to take Lyrica because I have a pretty mild case and the side effects are worse than my symptoms are most of the time.
OTOH, IMO, there is no side effect of any medication in the world that is worse than the (likely) over a dozen pregnancies that a woman using no birth control and having any semblance of a healthy sex life, would experience over the years. Not to mention caring for that many children when one is not prepared to do so.
I'm failing to see how the side effects of birth control are so much worse than the side effects of every other medication out there that the medication itself should be deemed "poisonous". I also am failing to see why a church that bans women from serving in its leadership, is better qualified than a non-Catholic doctor to determine whether birth control is "poisonous" for women.
It's poisonous because it causes the body to stop functioning normally; insofar as other medications cause the body to stop functioning normally, they are also poisonous.
you could argue that something that causes a desired change is not a poison, but i think ozk was talking about poison strictly in terms of its effects on the body and wasn't taking the person's will into account.
Nonsense, wannasee. OZK is using the word "poison" to get a specific emotional reaction. That's his entire argument: an appeal to one's emotion.
He does that a lot... "murder, mutilation, poison, dysfunction, mortal sin," etc etc etc."
And therein lies the problem.
"Poison" implies an undesired effect on the body, not a desired one. Vivec is right, OZK was using the term to get a specific emotional reaction because, as I understand it, it is his belief that some deity should dictate when people have children as opposed to people being allowed to make that decision on their own.
if you're a guy and worried about women killing fetuses or consuming poison, do your part: stay away from them or wear a condom.
aside from that, you should have no say in what she chooses to put in or take out of her own body.
No -- it is not poisonous.
A substance that, when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism, causes death or injury, esp. one that kills by rapid action.
(of an animal or insect) Producing poison to attack enemies or prey.
(of a plant or substance) Causing or capable of causing death or illness if taken into the body.
Birth control pills do not in any way induce death or illness; and its side-effects are no more severe than a wide variety of common drugs. Moreover, there is no injury or damage to reproductive organs. Birth control pills function as contraceptives through hormones dosages that "confuse" the body, but do not in any way damage it.
A poison is a substance that actively damages the body (often irreparably). Birth control does not in any way do this. It has side effects yes, but all drugs do.
i think if you would have looked in a few more dictionaries, you would have found a definition for poison under which birth control could have fallen. try merriam-webster.
This is idiotic. But OZK is intelligent enough to select debate parameters that are narrow enough for him to be correct. Whereas you, Piett, are technically incorrect.
None of this has to do with whether this a good or acceptable policy. Even OZK has acknowledged that by this broad definition many medicines qualify as "poison" and that ultimately, it a risk/benefit analysis rather than the label that should be decisive. But given that the risks are known and quantifiable, what we're actually arguing over is the benefit of contraception. Which is where this whole thing started, and making all the linguistic and rhetorical gymnastics pointless.
Freaking water can be a poison under your definition. If you use a broad enough definition, basically anything can be a poison. Your point loses any and all meaning.
Birth control has positive and negative effects just like any other medication. It's up to the individual in question and their doctor to make the final decision as to its use or not. Moral outrage does not give anyone the right to interfere with someone's medical decisions.
There was a case not to long ago of parents who refused to get medical help for their sick child and instead prayed. Lo and behold, the poor child died and the courts ruled that the parents' religious beliefs do not give them the right to deny their child care from medical professionals. Likewise, religious or moral distaste for contraceptives does not give anyone the right to interfere with someone else's health.
Even oxygen can be deadly if concentrated for too long a time.