I am starting another new thread on the subject here. For reference, you can find the link to the previous thread below.Support for abortion waning - Day #3

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000

Answers

eve

But WHY do YOU feel its justifiable in that circumstance, while not justifiable in other circumstances?

When choosing between the life of the woman or the unborn child it is a choice you make or will be made for you. In this case, if no choice is made both woman and child could/would die. In most other cases of abortion it is being used as birth control such as Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry) has stated she has done. It then becomes infanticide.

Pro-Life POV: An unborn baby is a tiny living/developing/feeling human being.

Pro-Choice POV: In order to have this POV one must look at the baby as an unviable tissue mass in order to remove guilt from terminating it's life. With the presence of guilt an abortion becomes a very difficult option to pursue. Not impossible, but very difficult.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

Citizen Ruth,

Your posts are so full of faulty LOGIC, that I don't know where to begin. There are some bratty children in the world, but from that premise you go on to paint such broad generalizations as to almost prove that you are a moron. To address your reply:

1)What does this statement have to do with anything being discussed here? Your original point was about the "parent posse", those you define as being incredibly happy to have children. Those that are not happy to have kids are meaningless to this discussion. Unless, of course, it is a Freudian slip on your part that tells us that YOU are not happy that you had kids.
3)I don't know or care what kinds of hours other people with kids put in, as you addressed your original point to Frank and I. I said in my first reply to you that I could not speak for Frank, so guess what? I am only speaking for ME. This is another example of how you take an instance of something and try to extrapolate it to ME, when you know next to nothing about ME. Faulty logic/reasoning skills on your part.
4)See my above reply about you trying to extrapolate your experiences to ME and MY situation.5)You finally show a modicum of sense by stating, "There are some people who's children are well behaved, granted" but then you erase that gain by continuing, "(although it's difficult to believe yours are in that number given your own unwillingness to consider other people outside your family)". Where in the world do you conclude that I don't consider people outside my family? And where did I "claim that no children are monsters"? I claimed that by you saying, "Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the little monsters themselves", you were either lying, because you DO HAVE something against children, or you don't understand the REALITY that you have something against children. Referring to children as little monsters proves my point.
6)It WOULD be a fault if I demanded that everyone give my children the same amount of affection and consideration that I give them, but for you to conclude that I, in fact, do demand such things is ludicrous. You then ramble on about things that my children have never done. Let me point out that if you ever grabbed one of my children by the back of his neck, and shook him really hard, I would disable you so fast you wouldn't know what hit you.
7)Name calling that is completely off topic. Why shouldn't I be surprised?
9)No, I have no regrets about having my children. I do regret being forced to debate with someone who can't put a coherent argument together, though.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

J:

"The issue at hand was actually Anita's claim that "many" who opposed abortion also opposed contraception. She never did support that claim."

I know you don't want to believe this, J. Could it perhaps be because you, yourself, use contraception?

I'm quite willing to ignore sex education and your premise that teens who have contraception will automagically be seduced into sex, even though the studies in the links I already provided demonstrated otherwise. [Why DO I bother to provide you with links to information that you'll never read?]

Okay...on the folks who oppose abortion also opposing contraception:

Do you ignore the Roman Catholic Population? They have a fairly active pro-life campaign going on, and a Pro-life organization entitled American Life League. Their views on contraception are presented, but they're not alone. Pro-life America is ALSO telling folks that their birth-control method actually aborts versus prevents, and they have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

How do you feel about Planned Parenthood, J? You associate them with abortion without recognizing that they were INSTRUMENTAL in providing information on birth control to women beginning way before I was born? You might want to check out their history before painting them with your broad brush.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 23, 2000.

gilda,

I am happy that your son was a good kid who turned out to be a good adult. My point in posting what I did was for you to see that your broad generalization of working parents who make kids their number one priority was just as faulty as my broad generalization of working parents who make work their number one priority.

gilda, I comprehend completely. Any good parent doesn't spoil their children(too much : )), and teaches them caring and respect for others. I just can't seem to understand how you and Citizen Ruth have jumped to the conclusion that I am an irresponsible working parent whose kids are allowed to do exactly as they please, when you know nothing of me except that I am against abortion. It is quite a jump, and it is way off base.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

STM,

I had asked you,

"But WHY do YOU feel its justifiable in that circumstance, while not justifiable in other circumstances?"

The crux of your reply was,

"...it is a choice you make..."

Given my question, I can only surmise that your position here is something like, "whatever you choose is ok." This seems to be an arbitrary position -- kind of a pragmatic "whatever works for you or me" position. Do I read you correctly here?

You then said,

"Pro-Life POV: An unborn baby is a tiny living/developing/feeling human being."

All the way back to conception? If not, where and how do you draw the line?

Then you said,

"Pro-Choice POV: In order to have this POV one must look at the baby as an unviable tissue mass in order to remove guilt..."

The "in order to remove guilt" statement is a subjective judgment of individuals' psychology and/or assumes that the individual is rejecting an objective truth (i.e., guilt exists, the individual knows it and justifiably feels it, but is now rejecting it for "selfish" reasons), and therefore is inappropriate in a statement of the opposition's position.

In other words, it "begs the question" by already assuming "guilt" as a fact (that the pro-choicers are now arbitrarily "removing") which really the party making the assertion (the anti-abortionists) is supposed to try to prove in the first place.

So, I see this "guilt" statement as an objectively unsupportable premise. This is because you're now inserting a biased moral evaluation ("they're trying to remove the guilt that we all know exists and is justifiable, and this is how they do it") into the pro- choice position.

STM, I have a background in philosophy, and I'm afraid this is getting pretty technical, so if it doesn't make sense to you, please let me know, and I'll be glad to elaborate.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 23, 2000.

Anita,

Wouldn't it follow that if I didn't use contraception (and was, therefore, opposed to it), then I would agree with your original claim?

Do I ignore the Roman Catholic population? No. Do I believe that they all feel the way the Pope does? No. Do I believe that SOME Roman Catholics who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception? Yes, SOME, but not MANY. I have never heard of Pro-life America. Are they a big organization?

How do I feel about Planned Parenthood? I think that they kill babies for profit. I think that years ago, before you were born, they provided contraceptives for profit. You might want to take off your blinders and realize that Planned Parenthood is interested in one thing- money.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

The crux of your reply was,

"...it is a choice you make..."

Yes. There is no black and white answer here. In this case, a choice must be made by those directly involved.

All the way back to conception? From my Christian POV, yes.

This is because you're now inserting a biased moral evaluation

biased? hmmmm. I will admit to having a faith based morality and I hope it reflects within my POV.

this is getting pretty technical, so if it doesn't make sense to you, please let me know, and I'll be glad to elaborate. No need. Thanks for asking.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

J:

Why do I research links for you just to have you ignore them? You ASK for proof of what I'm saying, and when I provide it, you ignore it.

When you've reviewed the links I've provided [in detail], I'd like to discuss this topic with you. Planned Parenthood is in it for the money? I know several females who get a pap-smear, annual gynecological exam, information, and even pre-natal care at Planned Parenthood for $3.00. You say the rest is provided by YOUR tax dollars? I don't think so. Planned Parenthood has relied on contributions from folks who think they serve the community for MANY years now, especially since tax dollars were reduced.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 23, 2000.

Gilda,

Sorry about the bitterness bit. I admit I was thinking it, but shouldn't have typed it.

What gets me though is it seems that you feel anyone who pays attention to their kids doesn't do their job, which I think is not only untrue, but a bit bizarre.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2000.

Anita,

How does a link to a couple of websites prove that MANY who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? I am willing to concede that SOME within the anti-abortion camp also are against contraception, but you said MANY, and I still contend that you haven't proven that claim.

I can't dispute your information about the $3.OO annual exam/pap smear. Does Planned Parenthood also offer $3.00 abortions? I don't think that they do. Also, it is funny that there is no information about their funding on their website. I guess it might look awkward to some that they MAKE MONEY by killing babies. It looks appalling to me. You believe what you want to believe, Anita. If you want to believe that Planned Parenthood is out there killing babies out of the goodness of their twisted hearts instead of killing babies because they make big bucks doing it, then just keep your head in the sand and keep believing it.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

Eve, you just about took the words right out of my mouth. Well, you actually said it much better than I would have. Obviously Stop's version of the Pro-Choice POV is from STM's POV and not the Pro- Choice POV. Funny thing though, Stop can't see that these POVs are his way of forcing beliefs onto other people. Just the fact that the biased POVs are written implies Stop wants to force these beliefs on all - Pro-life as well as Pro-choice.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Stop can't see that these POVs are his way of forcing beliefs onto other people.

You're absolutely right.

Expressing an opinion = forcing a view on someone?

I am a Christian first and foremost. I make no excuses for that and in no way have I ever tried to hide that fact. I speak from a Christian POV no more no less.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

Stop wrote on previous thread after I wrote:

"Stop and J, Stop trying to push your beliefs on me."

"Simply expressing ones own belief's does not constitute an attempt to push beliefs on to you!"

Did you have a change of heart Stop?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Let me rephrase that, just a tad...

Stop can't see that these POVs are his way of forcing beliefs onto other people.

You're absolutely right, I can't see how I am 'forcing' my POV.

Let me explain something to you. This is the internet. This is NOT face to face. Because of this, there is no way for me to remotely 'force' ANYTHING on ANYONE!

Sounds to me like you're used to getting/hearing things your own way regardless of the outcome. In other words, you're very much spoiled and now you're having a temper tantrum because someone's upset you with an opposing POV that somehow has been 'forced' on you.

Deal with it and get over it!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

NO, sorry to burst your little bubble (or simple-minded analysis). I love it when people try to guess who you are by the words you type. But eve hit it right on her analysis of your post. Notice she didn't talk about you but your words.

Glad you see you try a little back pedal. It didn't help your cause though.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Thanks so much, Maria, for your kind words.

STM, I appreciate your time and civility in responding to my questions. As it seems somewhat more clear where you stand now, and that you'll probably be sticking to your position, I guess we could agree to disagree for the time being.

-- eve (eve_rebakah@yahoo.com), June 23, 2000.

J:

Planned Parenthood is quite open about where they get their money. They're a not-for-profit organization. They receive about $5million/year in government grants and contributions from companies and individuals who can deduct donations on THEIR taxes. I ran across an interesting website run by the anti-abortion folks who investigated Planned Parenthood with the intent of proving they made money off abortions. Instead, they came up with exhaustive evidence that they made money selling contraceptives. The shocking news was that Planned Parenthood has access to things like birth-control pills for less than pharmacies have to pay wholesale. They can sell them for $5.00/cycle and make money, where pharmacies charge upwards of $17.00/cycle. Another anti-abortion website listed in detail all the organizations that contributed to Planned Parenthood and how much they contributed each year.

I have no doubt they make SOME money off abortions as well, but they're only involved in 10% of the abortions given each year. Who's making money off the other 90%?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.

Well, Stop the Murder, also known as Shit Stirrer has done it again. This first and foremost Christian wants nothing more than to get everyone in a turmoil. This idiot is one of the reasons I have no use for Christianity and its drivel. Few of us will change our views about abortion, but we will remember the facas it caused. If this person has ever posted anything but abortion posts, I'd like to know it. That's a perfect example of someone wanting to stir up shit, preach his sermon, and feed his obsession concerning the dead fetus, while ignoring the thousands of homeless, abused and neglected children in this country.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 24, 2000.

Gilda, one of your posts to Stop The Murder (from today) was posted to the "What Would You Have Done?" thread by mistake. I just thought you should know, in case you wanted to bring it back "home," as it looked kinda lonely sitting out there in the middle of a discussion about a moral dilemma concerning two Olympic hopefuls. :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 24, 2000.

Thanks eve, I must have been having a senior moment. Actually, I was in a hurry and not paying enough attention to what I was doing, or where I was posting.

Anita, I attend a big book sale every years that is sponsored by Planned Parenthood. It's in Des Moines, Iowa, and they have thousands of books. There are hundreds of volunteers, working year round, to make this a successful sale. All the proceeds got to Planned Parenthood, except for expenses. They also have these in other states.Most of the community supports it, all except for a few retards who have no idea how much help PP provides for women--help that has nothing to do with abortion. I'm a dues paying member of Planned Parenhood, and I also support the Baby Think It Over school program. I wonder how many of the ANTI crowd put their money where their mouths are.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 25, 2000.

Gilda:

If more women availed themselves of Planned Parenthood's information, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

I admit that there are a a lot of abortions each year, but someone outside of Planned Parenthood is doing them. J's confusing SUPPORT of abortion with PERFORMING abortion. He's doing to Planned Parenthood what some folks do the NRA. They SUPPORT guns, therefore they're responsible for everyone who is killed by one. J's right to have a gun is upheld by the constitution just like a woman's right to have an abortion. Funny how when something doesn't affect YOU, you're against it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.

1)What does this statement have to do with anything being discussed here? Your original point was about the "parent posse", those you define as being incredibly happy to have children.

No, I never defined them that way. Those are your words, and I'll thank you to restrain yourself from attempting to put them into my mouth. The parent posse are people who's children have supplanted everything else in their life. This would be sad, except that these people also insist that society give their children the same obsessive regard that they themselves pay them. The parent posse are the people who seek to limit adult activities because their children might be exposed to images, ideas, and actions which are contrary to what those parents want their children to be exposed to. Essentially, they want the world to bolster their parenting.

Those that are not happy to have kids are meaningless to this discussion.

Typical parent posse bullshit. They want to retool the world to revolve around the fruit of their loins, but they don't want anyone else to have anything to say about it.

Unless, of course, it is a Freudian slip on your part that tells us that YOU are not happy that you had kids.

You're putting words in my mouth again. What a lazy debating tactic.

Faulty logic/reasoning skills on your part.

Faulty reading skills on yours. Your assignment is to back and read my original post and my response to you. You are but a symptom of the problem, just another self-righteous fertility freak trying to foist your family values on everyone.

Where in the world do you conclude that I don't consider people outside my family?

From your statements on this board, of coure. Unless you've been misrepresenting yourself?

I claimed that by you saying, "Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the little monsters themselves", you were either lying, because you DO HAVE something against children, or you don't understand the REALITY that you have something against children.

Well, at least this one is different. If that's what you meant, why didn't you say it in the first place?

It WOULD be a fault if I demanded that everyone give my children the same amount of affection and consideration that I give them, but for you to conclude that I, in fact, do demand such things is ludicrous.

Wow, did you even read what I wrote? You said, "6)"Fault"? Hardly a fault, child's or parent's, when parents love their children." To which I responded, "It is a fault when parents demand that everyone give their children the same amount of affection and consideration they themselves give them."

You then ramble on about things that my children have never done.

No, I said, "If your kid runs over my foot with a grocery cart at the store..." You see, in English, the word "if" can be used to to discuss the possibility of an event (often in the future tense but not always) rather than the actuality of an event. If I say, "If my neighbors set their house ablaze with fireworks, I'm calling the fire department", this does not mean my neighbors house is currently or has ever been on fire.

Seriously, do you have a learning or reading disability?

Let me point out that if you ever grabbed one of my children by the back of his neck, and shook him really hard, I would disable you so fast you wouldn't know what hit you.

Allow me to point out that if your child ever breaks into my backyard and abuses my dog, I'll have him arrested. If you respond to this by breaking into my backyard and assaulting me, I will also see you in jail.

Name calling that is completely off topic. Why shouldn't I be surprised?

Once again, you're claiming I've said something I haven't. Sigh.

No, I have no regrets about having my children. I do regret being forced to debate with someone who can't put a coherent argument together, though.

No one is forcing you to do anything, J, although you seem unconcerned with extending that courtesy to women who are unfortunate enough to find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. Also, if you are truly concerned about a coherent argument, I suggest you stop trying to put words in my mouth.

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), June 25, 2000.

Here's an interesting Q and A from Andrew Lewis, a philosopher with a radio show.

from

Andrew Lewis

Question:

I believe the mother must decide to abort the foetus well before the point of normal birth and that the rights of the foetus do actually begin before the baby is born. The standard for when the foetus' rights may properly begin is when the foetus could remain alive if removed from the womb. Do you see any problems with approach?

RFP, Melbourne, Australia

Answer:

The issue of abortion does center on the question of where rights begin, which is when a human being does exist, not when it might.

Individual rights begin at birth, with the creation of a new, separate human being. Rights are a concept applicable only to individual, actual human beings, not a merely potential one. The fetus may become a human being, but until it is born and the umbilical cord is severed, it is part of an actual human being: the mother. By analogy, observe that an acorn is a potential oak tree, not an actual one; you may build a house out of an oak, but not from an acorn. The actual entity has attributes that the merely potential does not.

It is only the mother who has rights, and her rights necessarily include the right to control her own body; before, during and after pregnancy. The timing of the woman's decision has no impact on when the fetus becomes a rights-bearing entity, i.e., when it is born.

To say that the fetus has rights when it could be bornthe so- called viability argumentis to repeat the error of those who say the fetus has rights from conception. Both positions confuse the potential with the actual.

Abortion is a political right, and, like many rights-protected actions protected, are not necessarily moral. Morality is an issue of rationality, and a woman who becomes pregnant on a whim, then capriciously chooses an abortion, is as immoral and irrational as someone who buys an American flag and then burns it. This may be true of a woman who delays such a decision past the point of safety to herself. Such an action, however immoral and irrational, is not a crime; it does not involve the initiation of force against any human being.

Those who assert that a woman has no right to an abortion are willing to condemn her and her husband to the responsibilities of parenthood, as a duty, rather than as a chosen value. In so doing, they uphold the principle of selfless, slavish duty, rather than your own happiness, as the moral purpose of your life.

Those who assert that the fetus has rights from conception are those who wish to destroy the concept of rights, in the same way and for the same motivation as those who wish to extend the concept of rights to animals.

Andrew Lewis, Leonard Peikoff's collaborator for three years, continues Dr. Peikoff's work bringing Ayn Rands philosophy of reason, egoism and laissez-faire capitalism to the airwaves.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 26, 2000.

Oops...my link didn't work. Let's try it again...

Andrew Lewis

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 26, 2000.

Babies don't cost money,they make money.Especialy the little white ones.

-- Mike C. (tekmec@aol.com), June 26, 2000.

Looks like the title of this thread is wrong! Woohoo!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 29, 2000.