OT: Dear Protesters

[Basti]

I will respond to Denney first, then everyone else.

So which is it? It’s not O.K. to kill someone to avoid the outcome of a free choice, or not O.K. to kill someone at all? If it’s the former, then abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. If it’s the latter, then it has nothing to do with free choice. You can’t have it both ways.

You are trying to get me in a box. I understand that. Let me explain. In the average abortion case the person is avoiding personal responsibility at the expense of a life. In a rape case the person thinks an abortion will undo the evil cause. Both cases cause death. So both cases are wrong. The personal responsibility factor is a motivation for the first. In that case the person is putting their own lifestyle above a life. In the rape case they are trying to undo an evil, which is the natural reaction. But they cannot put that desire above life. Also, killing the baby will not make the problem disappear. My argument is that life is sacred and should always be protected. Regardless of the context. The free will portion of my argument was speaking about the mis-guided motivation of most abortions.

I certainly see your point but given the case that the women that got raped is either too young, mentally not able to give life to this kid or didn't even plan to have kids because of her own reasons (as selfish as it would be) why should she "suffer" (personally I wouldn't call it suffering because I think that children are no reason or shouldn't be any reason for someone to suffer) from something a sick man has done? even if I take it from a rather rational point it doesn't really make sense to me: given the scenario of an adolescent woman whom is not able to support the child she is about to get from a rapist, why should she suffer by doing all the things neccessary for the child to survive AND the child which will suffer a lot if it is thrown into a situation where the mother is not able to support the child whether is is moneywise or humanly? even if I compare your point with my point, I'd say my point seems rather less bad becaue rationally you ruin only one life instead of two lives (potentially)

[revprodeji]

You'd probably like to think you're arguing on secular terms, but you're not. In fact, I'll quote you:

Pro-life all the time. Simple as that. It is a mentality to treat life as sacred. The "gray areas" are tough moral choices, but I dealt with two of them above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred

Arguing that lifeis the opposite of secular is hardly a secular argument. If you want your democracy to reflect your views on the SANCTITY of life, argue why someone without belief in the immortal soul should subscribe. You've not done that.

Wikipedia is not a source. The same guy who wrote that also wrote the summary of the Star trek episodes. www.dictionary.com says

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacred
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Which is the context I was using it in. My argument is that the arguments I have used are universal in method. I was arguing logic, not "the church says ____ so we have to follow it"

Also, the issue of a soul can be addressed, but should the burden be on me to prove something universally assumed, or should you have to prove the soul does not exist? Plus, I have said "life" is sacred. my assumption in that is based on a soul, but also in that it is a gift we cannot create and should not destroy. We do not have that authority. I have argued life. Not the soul. Do you want to argue that there is no such thing as life? Abortion issues never involve whether or not the baby is a human, it is about whether that human is worth protecting.

I certainly see your point but given the case that the women that got raped is either too young, mentally not able to give life to this kid or didn't even plan to have kids because of her own reasons (as selfish as it would be) why should she "suffer" (personally I wouldn't call it suffering because I think that children are no reason or shouldn't be any reason for someone to suffer) from something a sick man has done? even if I take it from a rather rational point it doesn't really make sense to me: given the scenario of an adolescent woman whom is not able to support the child she is about to get from a rapist, why should she suffer by doing all the things neccessary for the child to survive AND the child which will suffer a lot if it is thrown into a situation where the mother is not able to support the child whether is is moneywise or humanly? even if I compare your point with my point, I'd say my point seems rather less bad becaue rationally you ruin only one life instead of two lives (potentially)

First of all, why assume the mother is too young? That is unrelated. I already talked about the issue of if the baby causes a legit health concern for the mother. (mirror syndrome was my example). In your example you are talking that the woman needing to raise the kid would cause problems to her and the kid. Perhaps this is true, but in this case adoption is always an option. There are numerous adoption agencies and they have wait lists. Also, often times in the cases of a teen pregnancy the family bonds together and helps. I am not saying this as an excuse, but a baby is not the end of life some people think it is. She could simply have the baby and give it up for adoption. Create a positive from the negative of the rap. Rather than trying to erase the situation from an abortion. Also, as I have previously argued. An abortion does not undo the situation. An abortion can often cause physiological and psychological issues to the woman. Not to mention the death of the baby. It is not an undo of the wrong cause by rap.

[mayorhoiberg]

You're right. I shouldn't have used wikipedia. I intended to use the same exact link (dictionary.com) as you did. You used the 5th/6th/7th most common definitions in your defense, I was using the 1st through 4th in mine. If you intended your usage of sacred to be nonreligious, I'll have to take you at your word. Your arguments, STILL, whether you realize it or not, are coming from your (seemingly) staunch Catholic beliefs. (which is why--along with the fact that most commonly, sacred is a religious term--I assumed you meant it that way)

Plus, I have said "life" is sacred. my assumption in that is based on a soul, but also in that it is a gift we cannot create and should not destroy. We do not have that authority.

As a Catholic, you believe that. However, it is not a universal argument! Who, exactly, is denying US citizens the authority to choose? I'm assuming you meant God, but if you meant someone else, correct me.

I believe that Roe v Wade decided that fetuses are not given protection under the 14th amendment. If they are not protected under the 14th amendment granting US citizens a "right to life," we absolutely do have the authority to decide. Again, in a completely secular argument, based on authority granted to US Citizens by the US Constitution, we actually DO have that authority.

What you would be better off admitting is that as a Catholic to the bone, you have a hard time making political arguments on nonreligious terms. To you, there is no separating your Catholicism from your politics.

However, when you do not live in a democracy that legislates on Catholic terms, you cannot expect others to agree with and pass legislation based on Catholic terms.

Abortion issues never involve whether or not the baby is a human, it is about whether that human is worth protecting.

I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion. The argument is very much about when a baby becomes a human.

In Roe v Wade, the court's decision was based on their presupposition that fetuses were not human yet. If they were concluded to be human, they would be protected under the 14th amendment! Arguing scientifically when a fetus becomes a human baby is one argument, saying that all life is "sacred" and we don't have the authority to decide when a fetus is a human is another. I don't think that latter argument can be made nonreligiously. You could change your argument if you'd like, but if you're talking about "authority," not everyone in the US agrees with you.

I do not want this to get very heated, I am just trying to point out to you that you aren't arguing neutrally and it probably is very hard for someone with a strong belief system to do so. Unfortunately, I agree with Obama that democracy demands it.

[revprodeji]

Obama did not say it demands neutrality, he said you had to have a reason other than "the bible says it" which I agree because the secular state does not have the authority in the bible. So my arguments have been from reason, not from Church teaching or scripture. Of course my catholic morality shapes my decisions. To desire neutrality in morality is an oxy-moron.

Roe vs Wade with the assumption that the fetus is not a human is not rational or scientific. It is a matter of convenience. Let me point out. Under a rational thought the only way/moment something could change from non-human to human is the point of an ontological change. This point only happens at conception. Where the two separate parts join together and from a new being. After that it is the being being developed and maturing. There is no state where another ontological change happens.

Medically is even easier. We have amazing technology today that shows the progression and humanity of a fetus. Whether or not the fetus is alive and human is never the arguing point. It is a distraction away from the issue of whether that life is worth protecting. Because that life does not get a vote I guess it is not. The same train of thought will kill the elderly or whatever other minority we deem as inhuman. It has happened before.

The U.S. does not grant the authority to end a life to its citizens. If someone kills someone they are punished. Suicide is even considered illegal. "The right to life" is the proper boundary in this country. So when an abortion is committed you are denying that right. You personally, are doing it by dehumanizing the baby.

My question to you is why I would need to make political decisions away from my Catholic beliefs? This is not the argument Obama has. (obama said we cannot use scripture/teaching as our only reason, but rather to use reason) Yet for some reason you do not feel I can be influenced by a moral credo on a moral issue. I think the idea of making a political choice without a moral backing is outlandish. I am not demanding that Catholicism is the method this country uses, but what I am doing it allowing my influence to shape the politics in the same way that anyone with a specific moral backing in this pluralistic culture is told to influence. Just because your backing is secular humanistic does not mean you are the voice the state listens to. The state has to listen to its people, if one of those people have a catholic accent so be it.

If anything, this "arguing neutral" does not exist. Please do not pretend that Obama in that quote says democracy demands watered down neutral ethics.

[Basti]

I certainly see your point but given the case that the women that got raped is either too young, mentally not able to give life to this kid or didn't even plan to have kids because of her own reasons (as selfish as it would be) why should she "suffer" (personally I wouldn't call it suffering because I think that children are no reason or shouldn't be any reason for someone to suffer) from something a sick man has done? even if I take it from a rather rational point it doesn't really make sense to me: given the scenario of an adolescent woman whom is not able to support the child she is about to get from a rapist, why should she suffer by doing all the things neccessary for the child to survive AND the child which will suffer a lot if it is thrown into a situation where the mother is not able to support the child whether is is moneywise or humanly? even if I compare your point with my point, I'd say my point seems rather less bad becaue rationally you ruin only one life instead of two lives (potentially)

First of all, why assume the mother is too young? That is unrelated. I already talked about the issue of if the baby causes a legit health concern for the mother. (mirror syndrome was my example). In your example you are talking that the woman needing to raise the kid would cause problems to her and the kid. Perhaps this is true, but in this case adoption is always an option. There are numerous adoption agencies and they have wait lists. Also, often times in the cases of a teen pregnancy the family bonds together and helps. I am not saying this as an excuse, but a baby is not the end of life some people think it is. She could simply have the baby and give it up for adoption. Create a positive from the negative of the rap. Rather than trying to erase the situation from an abortion. Also, as I have previously argued. An abortion does not undo the situation. An abortion can often cause physiological and psychological issues to the woman. Not to mention the death of the baby. It is not an undo of the wrong cause by rap.

I never tried to let it look like the mother was too young nor did I try to go the health concern way. it was just an example.
and yes adoption might be a way to make it better. but that is not my point. my point rather was to show you that if a woman gets raped and is about to give life to a child caused from this rape it is likely that for the both of them things get bad. what if the child asks where it came from? what if the kids asks who its daddy is? if you're honest and tell the kid that it was a "production" (I couldn't find a better word) of a rape case I can imagine that the kid will be screwed mentally for the rest of its life. well you could lie but then I can see the mother or the parents who adopted that kid feeling akward because they had to lie. yes they could seek help from counselors but I still can see them having an issue with it. I can't imagine that such a mental problem is solved by counselors.
and if you say that the abortion can cause psychological issues I respond by saying that an adoption is about to cause the same particuarly in a case where the woman got raped. and heck I also think that if a woman had to go through a rape I can't believe she'll be able to raise a kid nor being able to give it to an adoption agency.

[Klomp]

This has been quite the interesting debate.

[deeney0]

So which is it? It’s not O.K. to kill someone to avoid the outcome of a free choice, or not O.K. to kill someone at all? If it’s the former, then abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. If it’s the latter, then it has nothing to do with free choice. You can’t have it both ways.

You are trying to get me in a box. I understand that. Let me explain. In the average abortion case the person is avoiding personal responsibility at the expense of a life. In a rape case the person thinks an abortion will undo the evil cause. Both cases cause death. So both cases are wrong. The personal responsibility factor is a motivation for the first. In that case the person is putting their own lifestyle above a life. In the rape case they are trying to undo an evil, which is the natural reaction. But they cannot put that desire above life. Also, killing the baby will not make the problem disappear. My argument is that life is sacred and should always be protected. Regardless of the context. The free will portion of my argument was speaking about the mis-guided motivation of most abortions.

I understand and respect your opinion. I'm not going to spend time with the fetus/baby argument. Your pro-life viewpoint is anchored by a belief that a fetus gets a soul at conception - and my views are based on a skepticism of that fact and a grudging sense of practicality.

You seem awful confident telling other people what they will (should) feel.

Is that a personal attack? Just curious. My quote about the psychological and physiological effects of abortion can be found with a simple google search and a credible website. Is that what you are denying?

Not trying to make a personal attack at all. I respect you and your opinions, let me know if anything I say is over the line. I just think some of your statements were over encompassing generalizations. Not only do all women NOT feel the same way about their choice to have abortions, I would argue that no two women feel the same way. Your statements might be true of some women, they might even be true on average, but they are not true for all.;

There are degrees of birth defects. We’re not talking about Down Syndrome here. Tay-Sachs is an unbelievably cruel disease. Fatty acids accumulate in the nerve cells, causing excruciating pain and cell death. The child becomes blind and deaf and loses all muscle control. Survival beyond the age of 4 is rare. This is prenatal euthanasia we’re talking about. Another example, less than 10% of children born with trisomy 18 live past their first year. Again, their short time on earth is constant agony.

I admit I am not familiar with some of those diseases. What I will argue is that if we deem ourselves as having the authority to determine who can live and who can die we are no better than Hitler. I do not know enough about the specific diseases to comment on them, but I do know that the majority of abortions do not occur because of them. It is an argument used to gray area the issue and then apply that gray area to the self-serving aspect of abortion. if I had to error on this issue I would still side with life rather than extermination.

No, a majority of abortions do not occur because of birth defects (or rape, for that matter.) The reason they are often brought up by pro-choicers in debates is because it helps illustrate that there are gray areas, and if those gray areas exist might there not be others? I don't know where to draw the line. You would err on the side of life, I would err on the side of the mother's choice.

You would rather ignore the problem. People shouldn’t speed on the interstate, so why have safety features in cars? You seem to think you have the right to tell other people how they should think and feel about sex. That’s not a philosophy I subscribe to. Many European countries have what you would describe as an even more perverted outlook on sex than the US does, but without abstinence-only sex education they have lower incidents of teen pregnancy.

And free birth control isn’t an endorsement of the problem anymore than seat belts are an endorsement of reckless driving or safe-walk and safe-ride programs are an endorsement of binge drinking.

I fundamentally disagree. A car accident is an inherent problem of driving vehicles. Regardless of how we prepare, educate or simply be careful, there is always the risk of a car accident. Being a teen ager does not automatically mean you get pregnant. Kids do not just walk around and *poof* they have a baby. making the analogy of car driving accidents to teen aged pregnancy is fundamentality flawed in that it utterly avoids the free will aspect that is so essential. We decide to have sex, we decide to protect the life or kill the baby. Often in a car accident we do not decide to have the accident.
A key aspect of your argument is that you are trying to fix the problem of teen pregnancy. My problem is I am trying to stop millions of deaths. Lets work on protecting the life before we worry about the quality of that life.
You describe to a loose moral individualistic philosophy. I understand that. In that regard your focus is going to be on what fits/feels the best. I do not agree with that. I believe there are moral absolutes. Morality is not simply what the person in power feels fits the best for them. The morality is determined and it is our goal to life up to that. Not dumb-down our morality to fit our life.

And no matter how much we prepare, educate, or be careful, teenagers will have sex. It's what they are programmed to do. Independent of the abortion debate, abstinence-only sex education needs to go. It doesn't work.

btw, your comeback aimed at Klomp. The one where you said the Christian moral system allows Gay marriage based on "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor" is another example of your moral system not being christian, but rather using the Christian teaching to fit your own system. Which is fine, I understand the motive. Just do not do it. Being pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage is not a christian understanding of the morality. Please do not pervert it and pretend it is.

No, you're confusing Christian with Catholic as you did earlier. There are many Protestant groups that recognize and celebrate marriages between two people of the same sex.

[shrink]

This has been quite the interesting debate.

I agree, and I commend everyone who has contributed to such a personal discussion.

There aren't many boards where people can share their views on these topics without fists flying, but I am happy to see a respectful discussion among people of very different views. Thanks rev, for not shutting this down, and thanks to all for posters for showing that it doesn't have to be shut down.

[deeney0]

Thirded. This is way more civil than could be expected on the Current Events board, for example. I've found it fascinating,

[casey]

The goals of wars are almost always advancement of political agendas or boundaries. Those countries that are being invaded or that are coming to the aid of an invaded country can certainly claim a moral stance. The countries that start the conflict cannot. Some wars are inevitable and likely necessary and some are just down right immoral. Going after Al Qaeda (remember them?) is morally justified. Going after Iraq because it has strategic oil reserves and because of some unfinished family business is not. For the current President to claim to be pro-life and send thousands of Americans and Iraqis to their deaths in order to line the pockets of himself and his friends is the height of hypocrisy.

I was talking about a just war, not the Iraq war.

[Devilzsidewalk]

The goals of wars are almost always advancement of political agendas or boundaries. Those countries that are being invaded or that are coming to the aid of an invaded country can certainly claim a moral stance. The countries that start the conflict cannot. Some wars are inevitable and likely necessary and some are just down right immoral. Going after Al Qaeda (remember them?) is morally justified. Going after Iraq because it has strategic oil reserves and because of some unfinished family business is not. For the current President to claim to be pro-life and send thousands of Americans and Iraqis to their deaths in order to line the pockets of himself and his friends is the height of hypocrisy.

I was talking about a just war, not the Iraq war.

but he makes a good point, how many just wars are initiated? Is there ever clear and just cause to strike first?

[deeney0]

I agree with rev that abortion as a method of birth control is a matter of convinience / selfishness, an unfortunate one at that. Where I disagree with rev is that "human" is just an on/off switch that is flipped at conception. I'm not willing to assert with any confidence that the single cell that will BECOME human IS human, and because of that I'm forced to accept a sliding scale of humanness, which is where we are at more or less in this country anyway - there are a lot more restrictions on 3rd term abortions thanon 1st term.

[deeney0]

shrink, were you a Ron Paul backer?

[shrink]

shrink, were you a Ron Paul backer?

I backed no one, and didn't look into Ron Paul in either 2004 or 2008.

[deeney0]

That probably wasn't the right question; if you're relatively disillusioned with the two major parties, why not a third party candidate?

[shrink]

That probably wasn't the right question; if you're relatively disillusioned with the two major parties, why not a third party candidate?

Effectiveness issues. I'm opposed to both parties politicizing and spinning every single issue, and in general, finding little common ground to get anything accomplished for the people that they represent. As we saw with Jesse Ventura, even if an independent wins, instead of having one party opposing him, he has both. An effective third party candidate would have to get through the election season and retain such immense political appeal with the common voter, that Republican and Democrat candidates who wanted to oppose him would be more worried about their futures from the common man than their own political apparatus. I don't know who has that kind of power with the common voter, that could withstand the negative campaiging. President Oprah, maybe?

I end up voting for the lesser of two evils. Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.

[deeney0]

Kang won, lol

[shrink]

Kang won, lol

He did? Avengers Assemble!

[Shox214]

Anybody watch the debate last night?

[revprodeji]

No, but I am very involved with the Bailout concept. So the recent political movement about it concerns me. Not towards one or another, but both actually. Mccain is listening to idiots, and Biden said the same thing as McCain. I understand it is impossible for someone to be an expert in all things, but he needs to get good fiscal information from someone.

Ok, done venting. I still need to watch the debate, just going off of txt right now.