![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - December 31 2003 : 4:10:28 PM
|
| Unwanted? Kill'em. Defective? Kill'em. Might grow up to be a criminal? Kill'em. Sangerism at its best.People say this is a religious issue but most of us believe in God.Do you actually believe God who is the author of life would condone this mass slaughter of innocents? Remember,we are over in Iraq supposingly trying to save innocent people from being slaugtered but we slaughter our own 4,400 times a day and counting.Wonder what the Author of Life thinks? |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 5:57:24 PM
|
Said before and repeated:
When laws are made which are unsupported and opposed by a large segment of society, you foster contempt for law itself and resentment - even hostility - toward the government which would impose that law upon it's unwilling population. Period.
What don't some people get about that?
Ah well, clearly religion plays no part in the discussion, eh?
My sentiments for New Year's remain heartfelt none-the-less.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - December 31 2003 : 6:14:23 PM
|
Yes, Yes ... I, oppressor of women & children everywhere, would have all these things done. I, enemy of freedom & suppressor of free will would surely declare the Americas to be a confederation of confessional states & swiftly mandate rape, conception, pedophilia, poverty, suffering, & misery. I'd cruelly ban thought, charity, & science, & shrewdly place all my friends - mercenaries & rapists, all - at every corner, lamp post, & bedroom. I didn't know it, but now that you've so eloquently exposed me for what I truly am, I've no choice but to beg pardon for my sins & implore someone to stop me from my cruel agenda. Save me from myself, O merciful brothers of liberty! I must stop forcing myself & my oppressive world domination upon the good, humane doomsayers & fatalists that merely seek self-determination at any cost, and a little late. I must stop my mad opposition to infanticide before all human rights are trampled, revolutions are halted, & all is truly lost.
Has it ever occurred to you that in this fantastic Act One: Scene Two drama you've written there is a plot problem? While all the good life-loving people go about their personal choice business of creating a better, kinder, gentler world via the ultimate infliction of child abuse (infanticide), poverty, abuse, suffering, misery, hunger, crime, rape, violence, murder, & a host of other fruits of my labor have actually increased. It's all gotten worse. You might want to work on that. [Suggestions; Are there no workhouses? Are there no Hatcheries?]
Let's all swear on the holy book of constitutions, raise our glasses of Soma, crush unwanted unpleasantries, & be happy!
This wretched Malthusian disdain is not veiled by pretense of mercy or compassion. You choose to hide behind the skirt of women's choices but it's transparent as shattered lives & heavy as Marley's chains. Your elitist eugenic philosophy betrays your every claim against suffering & would surely please dear Josef who would, I'm sure, honor you with his favorite accolade for obedient purveyors of social pragmatism & profitable death; useful idiot.
A life's value is not measured by love or degrees of imperfection. Don't cheapen it so by insane litmus tests for the life 'worth living.'
In MY world, were I so fortunate to live among people of good will who were also doing God's, there would be no infanticide not because there was no suffering or pain, both being part of life's nature, and not because there was stigma or prohibition, but because women would never DREAM of putting their children to the knife for ANY reason.
quote:
When laws are made which are unsupported and opposed by a large segment of society, you foster contempt for law itself and resentment - even hostility - toward the government which would impose that law upon it's unwilling population.
Unhappy malcontents? 'Tis a pity. They'll get over it. The dead won't.
I'll leave you with yet another excellent quote from our good friend Gandalf, shared earlier by an insightful person & which I find very pertinent. Do with it what you will. It's precioussssss.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Auld Lang Syne ... |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - December 31 2003 : 6:43:18 PM
|
Careful Lainey, your venom is showing. I actually had to laugh. ME being accused of Stalinist useful idiot stature? Orwellian? Brave new world? Seems to me that's exactly where you would have us head. End of argument. Every time I rear my head to TRY to make a point around here, it gets lopped off, the venom flows, accusations and insults fly, demeaning words are spoken, etc. Yup. A real healthy forum for discourse indeed.
My New Year's sentiment remains heartfelt for all, including you venomous Lainey, but I am well and truly outta here for good and the better for it I think. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 01 2004 : 12:08:10 AM
|
Hmmmm ... I rather liked it. Does this mean I've won the argument?
And thank you for the New Year's sentiments. Et tu!
[Said with absolute sincerity.] |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 01 2004 : 11:42:01 AM
|
The Professor and C. S. Lewis (another Inkling) had passionate discussions on allegory. For a Christian epic, read the Chronicals of Narnia. Here is a short section from the Forward to the 1968 editions of "The Lord of the Rings".
"The Lord of the Rings" has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print ten years ago; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptable; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps no possible in a long tale to please everybody at al points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and "The Hobbit". The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentailly the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.
The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-du^r would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survivied even as slaves.
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other is the purposed domination of the author.
- J. R. R. Tolkien |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 02 2004 : 12:23:36 AM
|
quote:
The Professor and C. S. Lewis (another Inkling) had passionate discussions on allegory. For a Christian epic, read the Chronicals of Narnia. Here is a short section from the Forward to the 1968 editions of "The Lord of the Rings".
Yes, The Chronicals of Narnia contain overtly Christian allegory (it's hard to miss Aslan's nature) as would be expected of Lewis, who thought allegorical fiction, which he was very proficient at & comfortable with, effective for his purpose. He was, in all ways, a Christian apologist and, as such, utilized his gifts to that end.
Tolkien, on the other hand, while a devout Christian never saw himself or his writing in that vein. Not viewing himself as a Christian writer or theologian per se (he was primarily a philologist, after all), and keeping much of his personal life hidden, he never was compelled to specifically write Christian tales or become a Christian writer. Nonetheless, as is found in his published 'Letters' (1981, Allen & Unwin), his faith "permeated" every aspect of his being, including his fictional creation, or what Tolkien described as "sub-creation," of Middle-Earth. No deliberate explicit Christian allegory but most definitely a constant theme or presence in his fictional works, which, despite his dislike of allegory, is found in bits here and there nonetheless. [Three characters, for example, are types of Christ in His various roles; priest, prophet, & king.] As he explained, he diligently extirpated most religious references or practices so "the religious element" is thoroughly "absorbed into the story and the symbolism." His "sub-creation" was, according to himself in his essay "On Fairy-stories," a mythical world created (or sub-created) as God might have created had he wanted to. He called it "a tribute to the infinity of God’s potential variety."
One reads C. S. Lewis & knows he is reading Christian tales, great ones at that. ('The Screwtape Letters' is perhaps his best work. Great wit.) One reads Tolkien, not specifically for the Christian essence or reference, but for the richness of his tales, and in the process, as Tolkien has made clear, he is reading or absorbing a Christian creation myth nonetheless, imbued with rich, Christian symbolism & sacrificial, hopeful, salvific themes.
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 02 2004 : 12:47:58 AM
|
And I almost forgot the original question;
quote:
Will a candidates stance on abortion be the deciding factor in your voting choice next November? If yes, why?
In the negative, yes. Unfortunately, I can't offer anything on the positive side. There are no true "viable" pro-life candidates. They're all advocates in varying degrees. Such is life with a two-party monopoly; two sides of the same coin. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 02 2004 : 08:17:26 AM
|
I can see why you would wish to claim the Professor, and as he says (I ran out of steam tying this stuff in) "An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."
The universal truths you wish to claim for Christianity go beyond Christianity. If you liked "The Lord of the Rings" you might like "Njal's Saga" of the "Eldar Eddas" written in Iceland in the 900s. http://www.gutenberg.net/etext96/njals10.txt
If you were to read it (until you got between half and two-thirds through), you would insist the Njal was a Good Christian from his actions. Then when you got to the part where Njal decides to end a feud by ordering his entire family to commit suicide (a la Jim Jones) he would trasmute into a horrible devil. The truths put forward by "The Lord of the Rings" are applicable to many religions. Didn't the Catholic Church ban it for use of magic for a while? |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 02 2004 : 1:05:00 PM
|
quote:
I can see why you would wish to claim the Professor, and as he says (I ran out of
steam tying this stuff in) "An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his
experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely
complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is
inadequate and ambiguous."
The universal truths you wish to claim for Christianity go beyond Christianity. If you liked "The Lord of the Rings" you might like "Njal's Saga" of the "Eldar Eddas" written in Iceland in the 900s. http://www.gutenberg.net/etext96/njals10.txt If you were to read it (until you got between half and two-thirds through), you would
insist the Njal was a Good Christian from his actions. Then when you got to the part where Njal decides to end a feud by ordering his entire family to commit suicide (a la Jim Jones) he would trasmute into a horrible devil. The truths put forward by "The Lord of the
Rings" are applicable to many religions. Didn't the Catholic Church ban it for use of magic for a while?
This is an interesting response & one which opens great opportunities for even greater discussions probably better suited in the philosophy forum, for it offers enormous possibilities to discuss not only LOTR's literary value, Tolkien's devout & essential Catholic perspective, the Christian virtue of hope that is now seeping into a hopeless culture by way of LOTR, & the philosophy of myth - the ultimate reality - the heart of the matter as it relates to Tolkien's works collectively, LOTR specifically.
A curt reply would not do the subject justice. A new thread within the philosophy forum seems just the thing. [Go me.]
Meanwhile, your comments;
"I can see why you would wish to claim the Professor"
I don't wish to claim the professor, only learn from him & appreciate his work. It has nothing to do with wishes, everything to do with perception. Do you mean I wish to "claim" him for Christian mythology, or that I wish to "claim" him as a Christian?
"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."
Tolkien's comments reflect his own intentions as a writer vs the onslaught of Tolkien fanatacism wherein everyone was speculating on his 'true allegories' which, as you know, he denied & detested, explaining his works to be ones of "applicabilty" not allegory.
(Many swore the Ring represented the atom bomb, for instance - a misreading that Tolkien scoffed at.)
But, to the question of whether or not LOTR is Christian mythology (a point I wasn't concerned with in my original LOTR references but which you seem to be troubled by)? Most definitely, yes. And more specifically, it is a Catholic epic. Can we trust the professor's opinion on the matter?
"Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so ar first, but consciously in the revision ... For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
So said Tolkien & upon his word I rest that question.
I don't require Christianity of my sagas or mythology appreciation, and I never mistook the Greek gods & heroes for Christ-figures, but I do confess a snide satisfaction when such a great myth is, after all, 'discovered' to be so.
Why are you troubled by the Christian mysticism of LOTR? Take it as it is - if you reject Christianity's historical or metaphysical truths then it is merely a great myth - harmless & entertaining, & one you might enjoy for its richness of virtues & conflicts. In truth, it may well be called the greatest m |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 02 2004 : 1:23:10 PM
|
| Well, at least we established that respect for a human's life (and any requests) ends at his death. |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 02 2004 : 2:30:01 PM
|
| Then again, I might be making this all up on the run ... and already dead. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 02 2004 : 2:41:05 PM
|
| The case worker who helped us adopt our unwanted child was a product of rape.They are two wonderful human beings that other folks might say should have never been born because of their circumstances.Scary,ain't it? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 04 2004 : 12:13:59 AM
|
Jim, while thinking about your 'unwanted' child & the 'by-product' case worker, it occurred to me there would still be raised the question, or objection - depending upon the particular rationalist perspective - of all the other less fortunate unfortunates than your more fortunate unfortunates. That would put us in the uncomfortable position of, not only first saving the world & increasing the eunuch population, but of putting forth a viable economic plan and utopian policy agreeable to the unanimous majority, certified by the WTO, & one which - well, everyone could live with. Sensitive to the popular aversion to charitable works and simple plans, & sympathetic to the uncouth nature of discussions regarding the politics of hunger, I've tried to think up a proposal that would solve all the societal ills that force us to endure such necessary evils.
Truth is, I can't think of any proposal not already proposed, the modest one being still the most practical, profitable, & permissible, that would greatly increase the fortunes of the unfortunates who suffer such misfortune. It may be all too obvious but perhaps it's worth striving for. After all, no one's ever yet tried it.
******************
A Modest Proposal
by Jonathan Swift
First Published in 1729
A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR PREVENTING THE CHILDREN OF POOR PEOPLE IN IRELAND FROM BEING A BURDEN TO THEIR PARENTS OR COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC
It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.
I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.
But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.
As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.
There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - January 07 2004 : 8:39:27 PM
|
Oh My, Oh My...been too busy to sit down and compose a coherent post as quickly as I would have liked (not that ANY of my posts are coherent). I simply could not let this thread die with this parable (Sorry Elaine).
I have had a few thoughts in reading this entire thread. As I have confessed in previous posts on this board, I am a scientist of sorts and am a black and white thinker; however, I cannot see this issue in black and white, for or against, all or none. I have worked with Moms and embryos and fetuses and infants my entire career in medicine. I by no means, in my short experience of my adult life, see us moving toward a through-away society. Every single day I see so much good and love in so many people. I see it in my patients and their families, and in my colleagues. I have some observations to share regarding the patients I know have abortions and those that choose not to.
First of all, I see elective abortions as being primarily chosen for convenience, by teenagers and college age kids, and those of all of other ages that have not considered the consequences of their actions until it was too late. Those that say, "Oooops, I know we should have gotten up and gotten that condom out of the drawer", or the " We only did it one time". yada yada yada - you get my drift. Anyway, these are the type of abortion choices that I don't agree with, wouldn't choose it myself, but WHO AM I to tell someone else what is right and wrong.
Now, in another shade of gray ...there are the types of abortions, pregnancy terminations that I don't haggle in my heart over whether they are right or wrong, I just know that I can't imagine our society without the ability to go forward with them.
A couple of case scenarios for you...
1) Your daughter's physician has phoned you from the emergency room. Your daughter is bleeding internally and will die if she doesn't have an operation immediately. You ask the doctor "Why is she bleeding and what has to be done?" He explains she has an ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy in her fallopian tube that appears to be about 12 weeks along. At the time of her ultrasound the fetus was alive, but she is at risk for the pregnancy to rupture into her abdomen and then she may bleed to death in minutes. He assures you that no fetus has ever survived an ectopic gestation, but is alive at this moment and it may be difficult to stop the bleeding if she ruptures the ectopic. She needs surgery now to save her life. He explains they will go in and simply remove the tube, pregnancy and all, and stop the bleeding (No chopping, slashing, or sucking).
2) You have known, since it was first possible to know, that you were pregnant. At about 16 weeks the doctor thinks your uterus is not growing properly and orders an ultrasound. The fetus is found to have multiple fractures due to Osteogenesis Imperfecta Type IIB. This is the abnormality you have heard of that causes children to have multiple fractures during life, BUT this is a type that is lethal. Almost all fetuses with this defect die within minutes after birth because they cannot develop their lungs due to the constrictive nature of the rib cage during intrauterine life - they will never be able to breath air! You ask if more fractures can occur, the answer comes back, yes - each time the baby moves he or she could fracture a bone. Is it painful to the fetus, can they feel these fractures when they occur? - Yes. Then you think...but he said "almost" all these fetuses die when born. He clarifies this and states that only in rare mild forms of this type of OI have babies lived a short while, but they have so few fractures it is sometimes not even picked up by ultrasound, your baby already has bones that are a quarter of the length they should be. This is as severe a case as he has ever seen. We can deliver the baby now by opening your cervix early and delivering the baby the normal way. It will not be able to breath air now, just as it wouldn't be able to |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 08 2004 : 02:34:03 AM
|
First of all, GG don't think for a MINUTE that you can't debate up there with the BEST of them! This is a very well thought out and well written post (as I have always found your posts to be) - don't knock yourself!
I haven't posted on this topic before, partly because I think I expressed my feelings once before on the subject, but also, because it is an area that gives me cause for a great deal of internal struggle. My feelings, like some others, did change after I became a mother, but not in the same way! Prior to having my son, I couldn't really imagine many circumstances when I would have even CONSIDERED an abortion. However, I cannot say, with hand on heart, that if I were to become pregnant now, with another seriously disabled child, I would not give abortion a great deal of thought. Not something I feel terribly comfortable about, but the cold, hard truth nevertheless.
For the most part, I agree with GG, it is the abortion of convenience I abhor, the fact that it seems to be such an easy decision for some people.
In short, I do not believed it should be outlawed, but I would like to see the type of actions taken that GG outlined in her post, as a means to reducing the requirement.
On a side note, I have read all the prior posts with a lot of interest, and they have done precisely what this forum is intended to do...they have given me food for thought, and made me question my own beliefs. When Lainey, Ilse and I started pushing for a forum like this way back when, that was one of our key aims, to expose people to all sorts of differing views and ideas, enabling all of us to see different perspectives that we either may not have been exposed to, or may not have considered before. It is the exchanging of ideas and information that help us find the strength in our own beliefs and opinions.
One last reminder....of something I was reminded of quite recently......when you feel that you are bashing your head against a brick wall expressing your opinion or you feel you may be a 'lone voice', do not forget that there are a lot of people out there that read what you write and don't post a response. Your opinions and thoughts may be reaching a great many people, without you realising it, and may be helping them form or change their opinion. This is a wonderful forum, not one to be scared of, or shied away from, but appreciated!
HM
quote:
Originally posted by Gadget Girl
Oh My, Oh My...been too busy to sit down and compose a coherent post as quickly as I would have liked (not that ANY of my posts are coherent). I simply could not let this thread die with this parable (Sorry Elaine).
I have had a few thoughts in reading this entire thread. As I have confessed in previous posts on this board, I am a scientist of sorts and am a black and white thinker; however, I cannot see this issue in black and white, for or against, all or none. I have worked with Moms and embryos and fetuses and infants my entire career in medicine. I by no means, in my short experience of my adult life, see us moving toward a through-away society. Every single day I see so much good and love in so many people. I see it in my patients and their families, and in my colleagues. I have some observations to share regarding the patients I know have abortions and those that choose not to.
First of all, I see elective abortions as being primarily chosen for convenience, by teenagers and college age kids, and those of all of other ages that have not considered the consequences of their actions until it was too late. Those that say, "Oooops, I know we should have gotten up and gotten that condom out of the drawer", or the " We only did it one time". yada yada yada - you get my drift. Anyway, these are the type of abortio |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - January 08 2004 : 10:43:32 AM
|
Amen to Gadget Girl's well-thought-out and heartfelt post.
I enjoy reading these and all debates and am willing to sit and listen to and read almost any opinion. 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. This makes me sad because I would like to think this fun community is a place where everybody can be respected despite of belief systems, values, political persuasion, etc. I'm beginning to increasingly see and think this is not the case here, so you will probably not be seeing me around here again. Or, if at all, very sparingly.
Just remember everybody, your individual path is not everybody's. Diversity is what makes this country great. And that's diversity in religious and value systems as well as everything else.
Happy trails,
Christina
|
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
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 |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
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. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
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 ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
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 |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kate
Ariel's Cabin Caretaker, Retired
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 10 2002
Status: offline
|
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 |
Kate
"Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thainig thu." (Remember the people from whom you came.)
~ Celtic Wisdom
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
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. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kate
Ariel's Cabin Caretaker, Retired
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 10 2002
Status: offline
|
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. |
Kate
"Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thainig thu." (Remember the people from whom you came.)
~ Celtic Wisdom
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
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 |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.46 seconds |
 |
|
Abortion Debate in the Presidential Race
