| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| susquesus |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 2:00:57 PM
Will a candidates stance on abortion be the deciding factor in your voting choice next November? If yes, why? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 05:08:41 AM
1) A man's family is starving. He has no food, no money, no land. He is desperate. Unable to stand the sound of his children crying from hunger, he goes off searching for anything edible. Before long, he comes upon a small outdoor market with food piled high on shelves and tables - all of it for sale. He has no money, though. He looks around & sees the merchant is nowhere to be found. No one else is near. He can hear his children crying in his mind. He takes a few apples & a loaf of bread & quickly returns to his family.
Was he wrong?
2) A second man comes to the market. He is traveling & stopped to buy food on his way to a vacation cottage where he's meeting friends for the weekend. He is already an hour late. He doesn't see the merchant & is anxious to be on his way as he's been waiting nearly ten minutes. He finally decides to continue on but not before stuffing some fruit, wine, cheese, & bread into a sack & pinning a note of I.O.U. to the door. He promises to return on another day & pay for the food. He doesn't sign his name.
Was he wrong?
3) A third man comes along. This time the merchant is back at his market - having been gone only a short time - and the two men recognize each other. They once had a dispute over money but neither one mentions it. This third man picks out a few things he needs & while he's doing that he begins to get agitated about the dispute. Convinced he was cheated of a fair price earlier, he decides to get back the difference by pocketing whatever he could fit & paying for only some of what he's taken. The merchant doesn't notice. The sale is done & the man goes off feeling a sense of justice.
Was he wrong?
4) A fourth man comes along, his wife & children with him. He, like the first man, has fallen unto hard times. His children are hungry & he has no money. He stops briefly to look over the array of fruits & breads & cheese. He knows how hungry his children are & he thinks for a moment of stealing a loaf of bread. He starts to reach for it - but then he turns and walks away. His children are still hungry.
Was he wrong?
*********************
"I don’t doubt for a minute that sincere compassion is the motive for some individuals to want to exempt certain ‘cases.’"
My 'draft' post contained a paragraph that followed this one sentence. Yes, I do choose my words carefully - sometimes too much so - I omitted the rest of the paragraph & moved on to the issue of motives less noble. I had assumed that having expressed several times previously in this very thread that I DID understand the intentions, the good vs bad thing, the desire to do the right thing, & that I empathized with the perspective being raised by Diana regarding particularly difficult scenarios, & having also expressly thanking her for clarifications & "thoughtful" posts, & knowing full well what it is that she does ... I deleted the rest of the paragraph. Why? I had complimented, in this same post, one person who had lately replied on this issue regarding aborting the disabled, & in re-reading my words it crossed my mind that explicitly & very respectfully praising Diana & the what's & the why's of what she does, and assuming that was already understood, while also applauding Adele for what she does, could give the appearance of intentionally offending another person who also posted. Besides, I thought it might come off a bit condescending since I was disagreeing on the issue ... ironic, ain't it?
quote:
The deliveries you found in the stats must have been between the legal cut off and accepted viability (20-23.5 or so weeks). Do you REALLY believe that they would have been done for boyfriend problems or coping issues??? I’m sorry, but I don’t know a physician that would risk his license to help someone get her boyfriend back or pay the light bill |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 02:17:43 AM
quote:
Just decided that this was not a debate I wanted to invest myself in further. I'm not sure how I feel about it and didn't want to interfere in the ongoing firefight. Erasing that post within hours of putting it up was my way of staying out. Frankly, it's not worth the stress or effort.
Ah well! Then I do apologize for putting you back into it. I was ready to post my reply which included your comments, brought up a second window, & didn't see your post anymore. My comments would have seemed strange indeed without your initial post. Your reluctance is understandable & fair ...
A couple of small matters, however, which you should ignore ... but I have to address.
quote:
Yes, actually. Considering the Catholic church's official position, and the fact that millions of Catholics worldwide look to the Vatican for their moral guidance I thought it obvious that the "God" card was heavily in play in this debate. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically in my post.
I don't know what to make of that ... one could draw several conclusions;
A) - All Catholics are opposed to abortion [were it a perfect world]
B) - Only Catholics believe in God
C) - God is a pro-life activist [well ... figure that one out!]
D) - Only Catholics expressed pro-life views in this debate
E) - All non-Catholics are pro-choice/pro-abortion
F) - All non-Catholics do not believe in God [it's a Catholic thing ...]
G) - The Catholic Church has an unofficial position that supports abortion rights
quote:
As to moral absolutism in debate- what's the point of trying to come to a consensus if both sides have already decided not to give ground? What I see in the abortion debate is two unyielding opponents each insisting that the other is wrong. No movement. It's very much like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Again ... moral absolutism is a definite standard from which we all make judgments - it isn't the judgment in & of itself. It isn't necessarily a complete statement on any given point, but it is the source of our sense of right & wrong & it is from this we apply the things we call justice, fairness, kindness, & all sorts of good stuff. It is like a well from which we draw our judgments, opinions, conclusions, etc. & without it we shall all die from thirst before even grasping the idea of right or wrong, let alone believing it.
Does it leave room for debate & consideration of moral dilemmas? Of course ... without it there'd be no debate & never a moral dilemma would rise - what would be the dilemma if there were no central standard or reference point to begin with?
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ... interesting analogy on which I'll offer no comment.
quote:
Condescend 1. to behave as if one is concious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity. 3. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntaily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior.
Sorry you feel this way, too ... but you have heard of me! |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 01:23:41 AM
quote:
I believe that in a Democratic nation, ‘freedom of choice’ is part of our basic human rights. Elaine, you say that the very fact that folks continue to use this old ‘democratic freedom of choice’ chestnut to vindicate our every action in this Brave New World is taking America – nay, the WHOLE WORLD, to hell in a handbasket.
Not quite - I don't equate "democratic" & "freedom of choice" as one and the same, nor do I see how 'freedom of choice/abortion rights' are even remotely reconciled with basic human rights - the most basic human right is life itself - that is the very thing 'abortion rights' trample upon. These are two radically different concepts, they are incompatible. To have one is to deny the other. Society must necessarily decide in favor of one at the expense of the other. To decriminalize abortion is to compromise human rights at its most fundamental point; its roots. If the right to life is not vigorously upheld & protected there can be no other human rights. Democracy speaks to limited individual freedoms for all (theoretically) with an incredible quantity of necessary restraints; anarchy speaks to unlimited freedoms - an impossible system to maintain for more than a few days as such a disordered climate inevitably produces despotic rule. What I did say is that we are well into the Brave New World mode.
quote:
Well… I’d say that if we did not put limitations on the Abortion process, that that might become a fair point. However, in creating Abortion laws that were based on the good, ethical models but which were ‘flexible’ when absolutely necessary, this ‘end of the world is nigh’ prophesy of doom scenario needn’t happen.
What limitations? What good, ethical models? Roe vs Wade alone gave sweeping room for abortion on demand! This is a point that needs clarification because I do not believe people yet understand what was done in 1973. A new political theory was put forth that completely bypassed the democratic process of presentation, debate, & vote within the legislative branch of government, and was instead legally implemented & decreed by right of power (tyranny in action) from the bench of the Supreme Court. The theory was this - during the 1st trimester of pregnancy the state has ZERO interest in the life of an unborn & therefore has ZERO rights to protect the unborn's life [no restrictions on abortions]; during the 2nd trimester the state has limited interest & could intercede on the unborn's behalf in a limited manner [limited restrictions on abortions], & during the 3rd trimester the state has full interest in the unborn's life & could, therefore, impose restrictions meant to protect the unborn's life [complete restrictions on abortions} with the added 'life of the mother' exceptions. In a nutshell, Roe "established" the "right" to abortion & mapped out a time frame declaring at what point the state had an interest that permitted restrictions. Do remember, the Supreme Court was not interpreting existing law or weighing laws on constitutional grounds - it was LEGISLATING them. This is exactly what the court had done with the Dred v Scott case.
Further, and this is rarely mentioned so I think it, too, has been lost in the rhetoric & polls, Roe vs Wade had an accompanying decision - Doe vs Bolton. Whereas R vs W established the 'right,' Doe vs Bolton [410 U.S. 179] went much further ... it said no abortion could be prohibited if the abortion was sought in the interest of a woman's health, and it defined health in such broad terms as to include psychological, emotional, familial, financial, age, etc. Anythin |
| susquesus |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 9:34:02 PM
"Susquesus, I read your post but now it's gone. 'Moral Absolutism has no place in debates/discussion ... unwilling to compromise ... It leads to moral grandstanding ... especially when they think they're backed up by God, the Universe, everything ... I think I've got a grasp on who the players are ....'
Just decided that this was not a debate I wanted to invest myself in further. I'm not sure how I feel about it and didn't want to interfere in the ongoing firefight. Erasing that post within hours of putting it up was my way of staying out. Frankly, it's not worth the stress or effort.
"Respectfully, I don't think you've grasped the debate, let alone the players. Just a tiny, but important clarification; I never once argued from a God point - that's a whole other level of argument - did you simply assume God/Universe backed up something here?"
Yes, actually. Considering the Catholic church's official position, and the fact that millions of Catholics worldwide look to the Vatican for their moral guidance I thought it obvious that the "God" card was heavily in play in this debate. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically in my post. As to moral absolutism in debate- what's the point of trying to come to a consensus if both sides have already decided not to give ground? What I see in the abortion debate is two unyielding opponents each insisting that the other is wrong. No movement. It's very much like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Condescend 1. to behave as if one is concious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity. 3. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntaily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior. |
| Adele |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 1:28:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Gadget Girl
Oh Goodness Guys...my "define win" comment was rhetorical really. I simply meant How could one 'win' this debate - better yet SHOULD anyone win this debate. Sure, someone can make the best argument, but... It just sounded competitive to me and in these types of discussions don't we ALL win through the sharing of ideas and information?
Incidentally, thought some might find this amusing...In high school, I was on the debate team one year, wasn't chosen as a front line debater (no big surprise there) but excelled at *Dramatic Interpretation* - go figure! 
GG
lmaooooooo!!!! Why does this NOT surprise me?! Oooooo....maybe we should start dishing out Lions Den Debate Awards?!!
Will ponder that one for a while....
Adele
PS Anyone want to be nominated with Rich for the Ignorant Slut Award?!!  |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 09:59:15 AM
Oh Goodness Guys...my "define win" comment was rhetorical really. I simply meant How could one 'win' this debate - better yet SHOULD anyone win this debate. Sure, someone can make the best argument, but... It just sounded competitive to me and in these types of discussions don't we ALL win through the sharing of ideas and information?
Incidentally, thought some might find this amusing...In high school, I was on the debate team one year, wasn't chosen as a front line debater (no big surprise there) but excelled at *Dramatic Interpretation* - go figure!
GG |
| Adele |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 02:57:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
I've got a great idea ... let's just continue this conversation until there's no one left here to post. Not sure of the definition of "win," but that might be a good example of "lose."
It is obvious to me that no one who feels strongly about this issue will convince the other side to "cross over," so what is the point of it continuing?
Though I doubt my suggestion will be acted upon, I would humbly request this thread to end.
As for me - I think I'll take a vacation ...
Have to disagree with you there Rich! The point of continuing this discussion is for various reasons. First, how do you know that no-one will change their opinions? Mine are changing at the moment on this issue! Secondly, the point of this forum, is not to change minds, it is to inform, and to share and to express. Thirdly, Diana has raised several very valid, very intelligent, and very informative issues, for which she has asked a response from Lainey. It is only through asking the questions, and getting the answers, that progress can be made! Feelings are always going to be affected on an emotive subject such as this, and in my humble opinion, Diana has the healthiest and most productive way of dealing with her feelings, through expression, humour and a fine supportive argument. She didn't stomp off in a huff, she backed up her position and said that she wanted more information supporting Elaine's perspective - that is debate! Right?!
There are plenty of options in a forum debate. You can withdraw from it, without conceding defeat, you can stay in the background and read and learn, you can become fully involved in stating your opinions and supporting them, you can have your opinions swayed or even changed (and hopefully have the good grace to admit that). Nobody is forced to stay here. When you think that someone is making a judgment on YOU by expressing a different opinion to you (particularly when it is a moral argument), you are, in fact, making a judgement on THEM.
This particular issue is one of the most difficult and emotive to discuss. I think most of us are agreed on that. However, I feel very strongly, that it isn't properly debated enough, to allow people to really examine the full issue in depth. This is part of the problem I have had in coming to a decision that I can feel completely comfortable with. It's way to easy to sweep it under the carpet - how can you know what you are against, if you don't really get to hear WHY people feel the way they do?
Sorry.. have babbled...but I have really found this debate useful and encouraging, and I have particularly enjoyed seeing two very intelligent, caring people, Diana and Lainey, state their cases.
HM |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 02:35:51 AM
My karma must be very good today - the PC was on lockdown since late morning, and what an absolutely pretty day it was ... I think.
"We can all draw strength from others - don't you agree?"
I do, Adele. For better or worse ... I do.
Susquesus, I read your post but now it's gone. 'Moral Absolutism has no place in debates/discussion ... unwilling to compromise ... It leads to moral grandstanding ... especially when they think they're backed up by God, the Universe, everything ... I think I've got a grasp on who the players are ....'
Respectfully, I don't think you've grasped the debate, let alone the players. Just a tiny, but important clarification; I never once argued from a God point - that's a whole other level of argument - did you simply assume God/Universe backed up something here? Or did you presume that MUST be the driving force behind all this effort? I was curious since you placed the statement in there as if it had been actually part of the debate. Perhaps you misjudged. Moral absolutism has no place in debates/discussion? Where would they, since they are assertions of absolutes & conviction that form our positions, have a place then? Why do you expect compromise? Are there no convictions in your thoughts? What is philosophy, what does it hope to discover, & by what method is it most vigorously pursued? [I'm not judging, of course - just having a hard time imagining Socrates, Plato, & Cicero purging the Cardinal Virtues from their discourse. Probably just my own inability to grasp it on a higher level.] Your statements on moral grandstanding and moral absolutism were, incidentally, grandstanding examples of moral absolutism. Thank you for illustrating that so pointedly without judgment.
Rich, no ... the point isn't to get cross-overs. The point is much richer than that.
Kay, thank you for highlighting Diana's exceptional qualities; especially the "moral" & "good" traits of which you've absolutely judged well. I thought they were obvious all these years to those of us who've known her, but ... still, there is something ... morally uplifting {?}... in knowing it for the first time all over again. And, I'm leaning towards thinking you're a very sweet, very jovial, very well intended person - but, who can say without a standard from which to measure? Who can know what all this good, moral stuff is if we haven't a standard? I thought I knew, but now ... how confusing!! Nonetheless, you, too, have proven my point regarding moral absolutism & I, well, I feel like we've made a small breakthrough. Isn't that great?! One small favor - if you so utterly fail to comprehend the difference between acknowledging absolute morals in our judgments, from judging the moral character of a person please refrain from gushing moral vs immoral quips, no matter how tempting it is to pepper your rallies with such punch. They really sound judgmental and, after all, we all know that's nonsense anyway. Also, if you please, if you've nothing more to add to a debate, especially at a critical, emotionally charged juncture beyond, 'What she said!' & 'You go, girlfriend!' you might consider a more contemplative role. Just a mini-moral suggestion.
For the record; a discussion on the existence of moral absolutism is quite different from judging one's morals. Interesting to see the quick reversal of my point; I was arguing there really are no mini-morals against those who claim there are. The responses suggest the opposite. That was a great misread if ever I saw one. If any wish to comment on the content of the posts in question, please do so without pretense of having been judged. Better still - read & make a little effort in understanding what was actually said before taking offense; you might avoid taking some undeserved cheap shots to be regretted later.
I'll answer Diana's charges separately ... & I will define 'win.'
|
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 10:41:05 PM
Rich,
I agree to put my folder away on this topic at your request. I do want to add that in NO WAY was any of my post meant mean-spiritedly. In reading it again, I find that it is perhaps not very effective to say "You hurt my feelings - now here...isn't his funny" all in the same post. I was also a bit heavy on the sarcasm - I apologize if it has been perceived other than how it was meant. I have been in one of those = "Oh yeah - here I am one of the worst of the worst" moods all day and in retrospect may need to give myself at least *3* days before posting when I feel strongly about something OR just simply keep them to myself. Sometimes I don't follow my own best advice.
Don't go on vacation - I'll sit down now!
|
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 7:41:54 PM
Rich,
That is a GREAT idea!!! I think that you are very wise to ask this thread to end. Nobody here is a winner if it means hurt feelings (on both sides). I think that this board is full of very good and moral people, and maybe we should do as Rich asks and move on. I know that is what I am going to do.
Kay |
| richfed |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 7:14:22 PM
I've got a great idea ... let's just continue this conversation until there's no one left here to post. Not sure of the definition of "win," but that might be a good example of "lose."
It is obvious to me that no one who feels strongly about this issue will convince the other side to "cross over," so what is the point of it continuing?
Though I doubt my suggestion will be heeded, I would humbly & repectfully request this thread to end.
As for me - I think I'll take a vacation ... |
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 4:55:04 PM
Diana,
I gain more and more respect for you every time I read one of your posts. If there is anyone on this board that I consider moral, then it would be you. You are out there helping women and babies every day, and I think that it takes a very special person to do that.
BTW, I think that you are VERY intelligent, and we need more people with your "mini morals"!!!
Kay |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 3:27:17 PM
Elaine, you pompous bitch!  *** As a health care provider I would like to coerce you into trying this new product – SEE BELOW
Image Insert:
43.64 KB
Image Insert:
45.44 KB
Above pictures meant TOTALLY in jest!!!!! I don't think you are a bitch at all, we might talk about pompous though 
First to address some earlier thoughts…
quote:
***According to the NC Dept. of Health & Human Services, there are abortions performed *legally* well past 20 weeks in the state. The numbers weren't real high [as in a lot of other states] but they're sure doing it. I wonder, is it the BROAD 'health of the mother' clause that's being used since that permits abortions at any age, any reason by way of a skewed mis-definition of 'health.' [Stress, financial burdens, boyfriend problems, can't cope ...]
A pregnancy termination after 20-weeks would not be allowed for the reasons you wondered about (know a specific case?), more likely other than the ectopic pregnancy, uterine considerations, etc., it WAS due to a maternal health issue such as cardiac failure from a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or some other life threatening disease that was present prior to pregnancy. Most institution’s Neonatal physicians will not perform life saving measures on say a 21-week fetus. This is past the 20-week cut off and before viability (chance of survival), but ending the pregnancy is the only answer to saving the Mom. Any pregnancy intervened on after 24-weeks would be a premature delivery. Reasons for induction might include premature rupture of membranes, incompetent cervix, or placental abruption. Delivering the fetus is the only possible chance to save it. For maternal concerns for premature delivery, the most common is preeclampsia or eclampsia. If Mom is in an intractable seizure state, what chance would prolonging the pregnancy give to EITHER Mom or baby – None. The deliveries you found in the stats must have been between the legal cut off and accepted viability (20-23.5 or so weeks). Do you REALLY believe that they would have been done for boyfriend problems or coping issues??? I’m sorry, but I don’t know a physician that would risk his license to help someone get her boyfriend back or pay the light bill. Was that not a judgmental comment?
Yes, I agree with you that my comments alluding to good reasons/abhorrent reasons were judgmental. I was thinking of instances where I would or would not even consider an abortion. Poorly stated!
quote:
***I was trying to get more clarification on this. Delivered early ... how? D & E? Labor inducement? [And I DO appreciate your help with this!]
How? Yes, labor inducement. Regarding pain management from your most recent post, no, pain management would not be a consideration, because to sedate the baby the Mom would have to be sedated and to sedate a Mom for 24 weeks would be contraindicated due to concerns for her health. One could not sedate the baby only either because that would involve invading the sterile intrauterine environment every few hours and risk infection. Again, not an option; however, during labor induction to terminate, the Mom is sedated as much as is safe and needed and thus the baby would be too.
To the present argument…
After returnin |
| Adele |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 02:29:34 AM
Excellent post, Lainey. I think this one in particular gets to the heart of the matter for me, and has highlighted some of the reasons why I have always had such a huge internal struggle with this issue.
I remember a discussion a while back on euthanasia to which you, and if I remember correctly, Diana, contributed a great deal. Another person on the board told me that they had read the posts with very clear and definite beliefs on the subject, and that for the first time, that person was questioning those beliefs, and was not as convinced in those beliefs as before. I feel the same way in this debate. Although I started out with a dilemma (and have had that dilemma for many years), I had always had 'leanings' in one particular direction. To be perfectly honest, I have always envied people who were completely SURE of their beliefs (either way) where abortion is concerned. To me, it has always been a minefield, and although I do not sit on the fence, I have had real difficulty formulating a strong opinion either way - very unusual for me!
Anyway, the point is....thanks to all who contributed to this debate, because it has really helped me clarify a few issues for myself.
HM
PS Thank you for the compliment you paid me Lainey, but if there is one thing I have learned, there is always someone out there with a situation a great deal worse than oneself. I have NO doubt, there are people on this very board, who either have tougher things to handle than myself, or are a great deal stronger in coping with their difficulties. That is VERY humbling, and very useful! It prevents us from drowning in a sea of self-pity, and makes us appreciate our good fortune in the things we DO have. We can all draw strength from others - don't you agree? |
| richfed |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 7:51:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
I have to tell this very short story ...
Years ago, this was. There was a discussion about pregnancy, children, testing, & disabilities, during which one person said, "If I knew I was going to have a baby with Down's Syndrome I'd definitely want an abortion." The next day, while at a park with a group of adults, this person noticed there was a group of 'handicapped children' also there, on an outing. Not paying too much attention & going about his/her business, a while passed before this person turned around. There was a little child with Down's Syndrome standing there smiling. The child reached out, gave a great hug, & said: "I love you."
Just think about that -
So I'm reading this very long, well thought out post, though being a mere mortal, I understood very little of it. [Just kidding there, Lainey!]
But the end, I instantly understood - it was a long time ago; I'd almost forgotten. That was me, in the story, a true story.
Thanks for jogging my memory! |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 3:56:31 PM
Continuing ...
Regarding the 'facts, figures, & stastistics thing' - while I agree they can and often ARE misused, they remain valuable cells of information that are frequently cited for edification or proof, and are, unlike sentiment & personal feelings, grounded in something concrete. They are tools, not Absolute Truth, & used rightly they offer something revealing & something useful, both helpful in discussions and in our attempts to formulate opinions. Used wrongly they frame an argument built upon half truths, and a half truth position will shortly fall to untruth. [Example; Maternal deaths listed nation by nation by CDC & UN Population Fund include deaths unrelated to pregnancy & childbearing, even deaths from injuries or illnesses occurring months after time of delivery - and incredibly, deaths from abortions are INCLUDED in the maternal death figures while simultaneously being cited separately as abortion related deaths!!! The result is a super-inflated number of alleged maternal deaths being compared to an obviously lower number of abortion deaths so an improper, untruthful conclusion is then drawn; ‘Abortion is safer than childbearing.’ That’s the sort of twisting that ‘in the final analysis’ means nothing at all. It ultimately became a lie.] If I were arguing in favor of abortion for any reason I would not use statistics either; they’d work against me.
Regarding the quoting of books, Christian allegories, non-Christian allegories, & personal views/personal experiences; Other writers often express with perfect coherence and brilliant insight a point that can not be worded any better. Why reinvent the wheel - and why quote from Mr. Paine's book?
Christian & non-Christian allegories - agreed, both contain brilliance & beauty, and as side topics, neither was part of the argument. This isn't a religious argument - it's a human rights argument. Personal views are wonderful, enriching, & very often thought provoking, but useless so long as they are disconnected from absolutes. Personal experiences are better since they reflect something real [so long as they are honestly related], but they are not more real or more valid than factual analysis or perceptive
considerations. One might oppose the current war in Iraq, but you had better argue against it with more than, 'I just feel it's wrong' - or for it with, 'I once had an Iraqi neighbor who had too many children.' Why is it wrong or right? From what standard are you judging wrong or right? What are the realities and consequences?
The chasm I earlier mentioned is on this point ... I, and many, many others, view moral things in absolutes. I simply recognize that there is a great pillar of truth from which we draw our thoughts, perceptions, judgments that remains constant & uncompromised, unchanging in its absolutism & its truth. It’s present even in each of our consciences -an internal manifestation of an external standard or sense of a thing’s rightness or wrongness, of good or bad. Even if we ignore or disobey our consciences, we can’t escape them. It’s not cultural or political, it’s not antiquated or modern. It just is. And from that point, as an avowed moral absolutist [not a personal attribute - a view from which to strive], I see important things in their clear qualities of bad/good, virtue/vice, right/wrong, etc. That’s not to say I can not understand, empathize, sympathize or otherwise embrace the human realities behind any given situation. That’s not the point at all, that’s the challenge [what do we do about it?]. The challenge is to rise to the occasion; to struggle & sacrifice & bear heavy tasks & difficulties in a virtuous & caring & good manner. We don't always succeed - I don't necessarily bear my own situations gracefully - sometimes we throw tantrums & sometimes we get angry. But, we must bear it. [One of the main causes of admiration I have for Adele, for instance, is that she has risen to meet the challenges of h |
| richfed |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 07:24:33 AM
quote:
originally posted by Lainey
Rich said: "there's a lot of common ground within this thread."
Rich, you ignorant slut!
There's no common ground. There's a great chasm in thought.
Ooooh ... I love it when you talk dirty to me!!
"Common ground," as I see it - Let's face it, the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience's sake. Here, has anyone come forth to say that is a good thing?
At any rate ... just acting in my "moderator" role & trying to keep the peace. I've had my say elsewhere in this thread.
Hey Kate! Congratulations! You've "earned" yerself a star!! Yee-haw! |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 11 2004 : 04:18:11 AM
"Do you all remember the parody of some news program (Point Counterpoint I believe)on Saturday Night Live with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain? Each rebuttal would be preceded by a slur like, "Jane, you ignorant slut!""
Yes! I DO remember.
"Some of the discussion (not anyone's actions, not anyone's words - just the feel of some of the more weighty discussions in this forum) can't help bringing that to mind. Everyone is different in how they perceive tones from the written word."
Very true ... & I can almost feel the 'You, ignorant slut!' tone in MY own posts; not what I was thinking [except when Doc M & I are chatting], but thoughts aren't always *heard* well when written. Must be something lost in the translation from brain to mouse. And similarly, not anyone's actions, not anyone's words, there is a 'You, pompous bitch!' tone to some other posts. We could dispense with a lot of words, you know, if we adopt these succinctly phrased little intros. Good tension breakers ... 
"Some of us - LIKE ME - even squeench our eyes up when we press the channel Bill O'Rielly is currently on, or when that Carlisle fellow is on (I get a big kick outta him though) or that little guy with the bow tie. I, by nature, am a diffuser, so these situations make me uncomfortable. Perhaps there is no way for everyone to feel like comfortable in this forum. The borders aren't clear - and I do best in borders - I gots to see them borders - SORRY!"
I understand the border need, but what clear or definite borders could possibly insulate from misperceived tones, intentional or unintentional wounds, angry reactions, etc.? It's the nature of interaction (especially cyber-interaction) that there will sometimes be disagreeable exchanges. Uncomfortable as that may be, it's better than no interaction. [Yes, we all could be more tender in our words but that's not always possible, nor desirable. And some people just have a different way of expressing views than do others, and SOME issues demand a great deal more passion in the argument. AND some of us just don't do warm & fuzzy - not ever ... or much.]
Totally unrelated border thing; I think it was Chesterton's analogy on doctrines & absolutes [morality & truth] where he envisioned this precipitous mountain top wherechildren are playing, laughing, running wild ... free & untroubled, happy & secure in their wild joy. All around the play area there are borders - borders that provide a safe, free boundary without ever restricting the children's play, their singing, or their freedom; without ever hindering their living. Along comes a Rationalist, a Modernist. He looks at the children playing & he looks at the borders and he thinks to set them free. So he,
speaking against restrictions, & railing against absolutes & tyranny, kicks down all the borders. In his thinking, he's set them free. He's liberated them. But the moment the borders come down, the children stop laughing & stop playing. They see there are steep cliffs all about them & they huddle together in the center - too afraid to move.
"Actually Elaine, I realize a lot of folks do not know how well we know someone or how long we have known someone. My comment had nothing to do with Bill's previous comments regarding an agenda - I can make my own assumptions (and yes, it was an assumption, although I feel we may have discussed this somewhere in the past). I
apologize if it was poorly addressed and offended you. I assure you I meant it as an admiration for you standing by your beliefs."
It didn't offend me ... I just saw it as an extension of presumption & that's a thing I've bumped into many a time before. No apology needed. It was I who was doing the assuming, I assume.
"I also apologize for being confused about what the discussion was - elective abortions. I read lots of statemnts like... - abortion is murder, infanticide, etc. Abortion - Termination of life - Termination of pregnancy - didn't make the exact di |
| Kate |
Posted - January 10 2004 : 10:08:39 PM
Hey there, R.,
Well... I don't know that I see much in the way of 'common ground'. But what I DO see is a lot of people with high moral standards, based on lots of thought, their own experiences and... 'CARING'. It's a good 'baseline'... dontcha think?
K. |
| richfed |
Posted - January 10 2004 : 2:04:27 PM
You know what? As I read all of these posts, when you pry away all of the ifs, ands, & buts - no, not BUTTS!!! Silly people! - there's a lot of common ground within this thread ... that's my take on it, anyway. |
| Kate |
Posted - January 09 2004 : 12:32:37 PM
Firstly, I know that I haven’t been around much, have only recently made an appearance here at the Board (so please forgive me if I mess up the format of this post!) and therefore, many of you may be thinking that I shouldn’t be participating in this debate. Fair point. But I have been encouraged to come over and ‘talk’, say ‘hi’… whatever. On reading this particular thread, this seemed like a good place to just jump in and add my two cents worth. Hey, what have I got to lose??
I’m sorry – I don’t want to do the facts and figures thing - or use statistics. Statistics can be based on too many variables, can be read in too many ways, and used out of context, that in the final analysis, they often actually mean nothing at all. I’m not going to quote books either. Some writers wrote brilliant books full of Christian allegories and ideologies. Equally, other writers have written brilliant books WITHOUT basing them on Christian theme. It’s ‘horses for courses’. And so I’m going with the ‘personal’ view based on my own experiences, as Diana has done.
For many years I believed that abortion was too often the selfish solution of people deciding that ‘the time wasn’t right’ for a pregnancy - a self-indulgent solution at the expense of a newly created life. And I STILL think that people who use this sort of answer as a substitute for contraception are selfish in the extreme. To get rid of a pregnancy and condemn a baby simply because they hadn’t the forethought or desire to use some restraint in their sexual activities is absolutely abhorrent to me. I believe it’s morally wrong and ethically should be considered unlawful. Having said that, I am not ‘ANTI Abortion’.
A little story… a situation that *I* encountered some years back and I use it to explain one of the reasons why I feel as I do. Some years ago, I had a Roman Catholic neighbour who had 7 children. She became pregnant with an 8th and in her 22nd week, she miscarried. She almost died and sadly, her son didn’t survive. She was told that her body was simply not up to the challenge of carrying any more children and any future babies were unlikely to survive. However, following her church’s creed, she did not use birth control measures and conceived a 9th child. That baby also died, as did the 10th and 11th child. In view of the sadness of the whole situation I hesitate to say it but the truth of the matter is, to continually become pregnant (NOT my point, let me say) and let the pregnancy continue, KNOWING FULL WELL the likelihood is that another and another, AND ANOTHER baby is not going to survive, is criminal to me.
THIS is MY definition of murder.
I’m an Occupational Therapist and I’ve worked with people, children and adults, having mild to severe, indeed exceptionally profound mental and/or physical handicaps. I have had patients who have had no knowledge or concept of life or living, consequently, no ability whatsoever to come to terms with the extent of their disability. Indeed, they haven’t the ability to know or make it known whether they consider they are ‘living’, whether their lives are fulfilled or whether it’s ‘good to be alive’.
Having said that, I’m not ‘PRO abortion’, either. But unlike many of you, I believe that there ARE times when it is right for a woman to have the right to terminate a pregnancy if that is what she deems to be the ONLY solution in her circumstances.
Someone very close to me became pregnant. At the initial scan, she was told that there were anomalies and further scans and tests concluded that her baby had terrible neural abnormalities that would prevent his surviving very long (meaning 'weeks'. He would likely draw breath at birth) and his ‘quality of life’ would be virtually nil. After much soul-searching and a GREAT DEAL of heartache, ‘Mum’ decided to terminate her pregnancy. She decided t |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 08 2004 : 4:16:53 PM
Welllllllll, I'm not leavin' and I'm not through yet either!
Do you all remember the parody of some news program (Point Counterpoint I believe)on Saturday Night Live with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain? Each rebuttal would be preceded by a slur like, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" Some of the discussion (not anyone's actions, not anyone's words - just the feel of some of the more weighty discussions in this forum) can't help bringing that to mind. Everyone is different in how they perceive tones from the written word. Some of us - LIKE ME - even squeench our eyes up when we press the channel Bill O'Rielly is currently on, or when that Carlisle fellow is on (I get a big kick outta him though) or that little guy with the bow tie. I, by nature, am a diffuser, so these situations make me uncomfortable. Perhaps there is no way for everyone to feel like comfortable in this forum. The borders aren't clear - and I do best in borders - I gots to see them borders - SORRY!
quote:
Diana, Diana, Diana - this brings me back to my earlier comment regarding peripheral issues; Though another thought it advantageous to their own argument to presuppose & express *my* opinion & agenda on the topic of birth control (mandate - I believe was the *fact* brought out), framed as an expository accusation, with the desired effect of neutralizing everything I'd argued regarding abortion, I, myself, have never said a word about it. Apparently, it was to some degree effective, as you've just raised it with my name attached to it. I know you didn't intend it as a counter argument or to be diffusing, or even to be duly noted; but it still has that effect. So - please, if'n you want to raise the separate issue of birth control, or ANY issue, can we leave my name off unless it's a question? And, yes, education & dignity ... & does Bill Gates get to have a choice?
Actually Elaine, I realize a lot of folks do not know how well we know someone or how long we have known someone. My comment had nothing to do with Bill's previous comments regarding an agenda - I can make my own assumptions (and yes, it was an assumption, although I feel we may have discussed this somewhere in the past). I apologize if it was poorly addressed and offended you. I assure you I meant it as an admiration for you standing by your beliefs.
I also apologize for being confused about what the discussion was - elective abortions. I read lots of statemnts like... - abortion is murder, infanticide, etc. Abortion - Termination of life - Termination of pregnancy - didn't make the exact distinction.
And yes, sure Gates can have a choice! I should have said could, not should... could'a, would'a, should'a - whatever.
quote:
Unwanted? Kill'em. Defective? Kill'em. Might grow up to be a criminal? Kill'em.
These were some of the comments I was addressing. Honest discussion...as it were? Unwanted = yes elective abortion. Defective = elective abortion (like the OI case or could be just a cleft lip). Might grow up to be a criminal (like XXY or XXXY syndrome perhaps) = elective abortion. This is why I felt medical abortions should be addressed - THEY ARE by definition elective abortions - therapeutic abortions only refer to saving a mother's life. *IF* a state were to make "elective" abortions illegal, "NO" the OI Type IIB child could not be delivered early. For instance, pregnancy termination is legal until 20 weeks gestational age in NC, but is legal until 24 weeks in VA and SC. To terminate a fetus at 20 weeks and 1 day, the couple would have to go outside of NC (even the OI couple)- no matter the reason - elec |
| richfed |
Posted - January 08 2004 : 1:45:13 PM
Aw geez ... not this again.
Christina, I have no idea what you are talking about, or who you are talking about. All I can say is it shouldn't be anybody in this household. Lainey already said what she had to say. As for me, I vehemently disagree with you on this issue, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one iota.
As I reread the thread, I see strong opinions, but I don't see name-calling. I do not understand your "run-away" stance at all. It is completely unreasonable for anyone to post in this thread & to expect everyone to agree with them - regardless of which position one might take. Now, if I were to say, "Christina, you are a complete & utter moron, blah blah blah, for thinking as you do," I could better understand. But all I've done, all anyone has done, really, is explain why they think the way they do. Why wither up from that?
I do not understand what is happening here .... but then, what the hell else is new?
I think a lot of the problem - in this thread in particular - is that a lot of us have contributed to the abortion business in past years - had abortions or financed one, in other words. So, I suspect, even though things aren't made personal, it is easy to let it seem so, from an internal perspective. This could be anyone ...
I'll tell you a little secret - [don't tell] - I did once - long, long ago. I'm not about to judge any one else on that issue. God has to do that, and I guess I'll have some 'splainin' to do.
I can't be anymore honest than that.
Carry on ... |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 08 2004 : 11:37:18 AM
Sorry, Christina - you posted while I was writing a reply & I didn't want it to seem like I was over-riding your comments.
quote:
However, upon reading some of the responses to arguments on this forum, I'm beginning to get the very real impression that there are select people on this board and in this group who would belittle me and think less of me because of my opinions on this subject...and others.
That'd be me, Christina, as the most vocally merciless of the opposing view. As such, let me say you are VERY mistaken. My opinion of you hasn't changed at all because of any views you hold. I thought you a sweet person when I met you & think it now.
[However, given your new *bumper sticker* - is it possible one might think the reverse is true? Maybe? I hope not ...]
Controversy & provocation in the right time & place ... it means we're alive, not hateful. |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 08 2004 : 11:02:52 AM
Diana & Adele,
Thanks for adding your well thought out comments to this thread & treating its subject with the direct & honest focus points it deserves. Having said that, I confess I'm having trouble responding to parts of your post, Diana, not the comments relating to abortion - that's the easier part for me - but some other issues you commented on regarding how people make their points & the reactions others have to them, and what is so often complained about elsewhere. It's not simply one of easing up & respecting opinions - it's more complex than that & it will take me, at least, places I don't necessarily want to go but will if I'm to respond fairly (for myself, finally) & honestly to some underlying issues effecting interaction on the board & in The Lion's Den. I'm gonna think long & hard on this before I do but - I'm thinking factions, hostilities unrelated to topics, selective indignation & selective defenses, passive aggression that's FAR more damaging & hurtful than a well phrased rebuttal and FAR more problematic.
Meanwhile;
There are separate issues entangled here & it's become difficult to discuss anything related to the core problem (elective abortions)without a thousand peripheral cause & effect arguments being made, & a thousand equally peripheral accusations or presumptions being
levied. The result is inevitably high-stakes debate with language & tone that is not meant to personally belittle, but to provoke intellectually. [Yes, there are occasions of sin ... :)] If people were restricted to discussing this (and certain other topics) according to the comfort level and topic framing decreed by some, we'd never discuss it at all. We'd keep sentimentally dancing around the subject; calling into question the motives of those who oppose abortion, belittling the opposition itself with red herring presumptions & imaginary agendas, demanding all who'd speak against it to first solve social problems, & refuse to talk beyond slogans that are meaningless. Thus the scathingly satirical, appropriately hideous parable by Jonathan Swift - provocative as it should be.
The topic isn't birth control, unless we're addressing what you've pointed out as "being primarily chosen for convenience," which is to say we've already become a throw away society on a massive scale (the goodness of people notwithstanding) since the vast majority of abortions performed are done so as 'alternate methods of birth control.' For the most part, there seems to be a consensus that this is wrong, disagreeable, or abusive of the system. Some say this practice alone should be illegal, others say it's distasteful but it's not anyone else's place to say so. The debate isn't about you or I telling another person what to do or not do, it's about laws restricting people from certain practices & laws clearly permitting others. It's about government's role in an ordered society. Is it lawful & ethical to kill unborn children through elective abortions? That's the issue.
You raised two scenarios for exemption from any abortion prohibitions;
1) Ectopic pregnancy - this is not an elective abortion scenario, was not illegal or criminal prior to Roe v Wade, & would not be illegal or criminal in the future whatever the legal status of abortion. This is a medical necessity that has long been recognized as a lawful,
ethical, medically justified emergency intervention that does not have life termination as its objective, but life preservation. The pregnancy is necessarily ended (if not already naturally ended) via life saving measures taken for the mother. It's not a self-defense issue, but one of indirect but inevitable consequences of medical intervention. It's not even a 'one or the other' situation. Without intervention both will die. With intervention the child will still
die, but the mother will live. [As was the case for a sister-in-law.]This has no relationship to the elective abortion cases & remains outside the scope of legalizatio |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
