Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

[5mn_Major]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Not pro choicers - they are embracing an immoral act and are misguided. The abortionist? You betcha. For if murder is immoral, it stands that the person aiding and abetting the act inherits the mark.

Your 200 pound assumption is that life begins at conception. That premise appears to be up for debate. I have no horse in the race because one woman's protection of life is another's compromise of life.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Kep - on this, yes. There can be no compromise. It's immoral.

And we'll disagree until the end of our days.

Yes, and I respect both opinions. But on choosing between them I put it to you as a question of math. Either hundreds of millions of otherwise kind, gentle, moral, self-aware people are also heartless sociopaths -- or -- an interpretation of a tenet of an ideology which has been shown to be factually incorrect on hundreds of other questions of act is, on this question of fact, wrong.

Granting each has a non-zero probability, which is more likely?

 

[joecct]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Yes, and I respect both opinions. But on choosing between them I put it to you as a question of math. Either hundreds of millions of otherwise kind, gentle, moral, self-aware people are also heartless sociopaths -- or -- an interpretation of a tenet of an ideology which has been shown to be factually incorrect on hundreds of other questions of act is, on this question of fact, wrong.

Granting each has a non-zero probability, which is more likely?

I can only point you to pogrom as evidence that normally nice people can do despicable things.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I can only point you to pogrom as evidence that normally nice people can do despicable things.

As I said, both are non-zero probabilities. In terms of likelihood, we each draw a different conclusion.

My contention is those hundreds of millions are correct: personhood does not begin at conception. At some point becoming becomes become, and that point is somewhere around the end of the first trimester. The conventional wisdom of humanity for almost all history was, in this at least, correct. Abortion in the first three months is the resumption of a period, and the cluster of cells is no more a human than a sperm or an unfertilized egg or for that matter a come hither look in a young lady's expression.

The iron rule is not a protection of humanity but an inhumane forcing of a simplistic and scientifically meaningless slogan over a complex reality.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

For me, a belief that is not religious-based, it is personally based, is that life begins the moment the sperm meets the egg and starts doing its thing.

That being said, if the life of the woman or baby is ever in danger, or if the pregnancy is a forced one (through incest/rape/etc), abortion is A-OK with me. Two people did not willingly engage in the act that created that child. If the two people were willingly engaging in sex, they should have been ready to assume all risks involved with said sex. Abortion is not a valid form of "birth control" in my eyes. And that's all I will say about that.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Not pro choicers - they are embracing an immoral act and are misguided. The abortionist? You betcha. For if murder is immoral, it stands that the person aiding and abetting the act inherits the mark.

This is an interesting position and I wonder if you take the same view with gun control that much of the white evangelical movement does.

For every person that uses a firearm they are in legal possession of to thwart a violent crime, many, many innocent people are harmed and killed by someone else using a gun they are in legal possession of (up to the moment they use it negligently or criminally of course). Yet most white evangelicals are extremely opposed to any further restriction on firearm ownership.

The recent Independent Lens documentary "The Armor of Light" featuring Rob Schenck, a Washington D.C. evangelical minister was well worth watching. For me personally I could see the argument being made that those that are standing in the way of ANY meaningful change or even dialog (like allowing pediatricians to simply ask and remind new parents about common sense gun safety) are aiding and abetting the killing of plenty of innocent born people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

For me, a belief that is not religious-based, it is personally based, is that life begins the moment the sperm meets the egg and starts doing its thing.

That being said, if the life of the woman or baby is ever in danger, or if the pregnancy is a forced one (through incest/rape/etc), abortion is A-OK with me. Two people did not willingly engage in the act that created that child. If the two people were willingly engaging in sex, they should have been ready to assume all risks involved with said sex. Abortion is not a valid form of "birth control" in my eyes. And that's all I will say about that.

I don't understand this juxtaposition. If a human life begins at conception the provenance of the human life created should not matter. Hauling in issues of the couple's willingness imbues it with some sort of "they did the crime, now do the time" that to me smacks of an atavistic idea of punishment for sex.

The "abortion as birth control" is a strawman argument. Nobody pro-choice considers it such.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I don't understand this juxtaposition. If a human life begins at conception the provenance of the human life created should not matter. Hauling in issues of the couple's willingness imbues it with some sort of "they did the crime, now do the time" that to me smacks of an atavistic idea of punishment for sex.

The "abortion as birth control" is a strawman argument. Nobody pro-choice considers it such.

IMO, if a man and woman are willingly having sex, they understand all the risks (they BETTER understand all the risks). If sex is forced upon a person, that is not the intent to create a new life. Sex is not just pleasure. It's to possibly create.

Any action done, should be done with the understanding of taking on all risks/outcomes of said action, and should be done with only WILLING parties.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

IMO, if a man and woman are willingly having sex, they understand all the risks (they BETTER understand all the risks). If sex is forced upon a person, that is not the intent to create a new life. Sex is not just pleasure. It's to possibly create.

Any action done, should be done with the understanding of taking on all risks/outcomes of said action, and should be done with only WILLING parties.

I understand that, but it doesn't follow that the life you think has been created at conception can be forfeited because the couple weren't both willing partners. The source of the life is not relevant to whether terminating it would be murder.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

... the cluster of cells is no more a human ...

Twenty-three pairs of chromosomes: It surely isn't an antelope. Thus, I guess I see the world as Brenthoven does.

Here's a question:
I was reading the legal notices in the paper today*. A woman is petitioning the court to sever parental rights of the birthfather of her child ... a child expected to be born July 16, 2016 (no typo). Now I'm confused. Could she have brought such legal action say seven or eight months ago when it was "... the cluster of cells ..." Kepler posits?


*I'll save Rover and Handy the trouble: "Paper? How old are you?" They don't put the legal notices online and it's fun to see the bankruptcies and the new zoning projects.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The "abortion as birth control" is a strawman argument. Nobody pro-choice considers it such.

Situations like Ms. Handlers (two at age sixteen due to acknowledge unprotected sex) tends to make folks skeptical of that statement.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Situations like Ms. Handlers (two at age sixteen due to acknowledge unprotected sex) tends to make folks skeptical of that statement.

I think it is irresponsible to both think of abortion as birth control AND to think that Chelsea Handler is indicative of the vast majority of women who end their pregnancies IF what she says is even true. Someone earlier in this thread posted that the "abortion as birth control" argument is a strawman and that is the truth that far too many people on the pro-life side refuse to accept. It would be as if all of the pro-choice camp posited that the only reason pro-lifers want to ban abortion is to make sure we keep a poor underclass who are ill-equipped to raise children that then become more bodies to keep the poor underclass populated.

I don't consider myself pro-life OR pro-choice but I do believe that most of those that are in the pro-life camp simply believe that life begins at conception, fetuses are babies and that's why abortion is wrong. It would be nice if most of the pro-life camp didn't cling to the simple-minded beliefs of the extreme wing of their movement who spout the simple-minded things they do in an effort to demonize those on the pro-choice side of the argument.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I think it is irresponsible to both think of abortion as birth control AND to think that Chelsea Handler is indicative of the vast majority of women who end their pregnancies IF what she says is even true. Someone earlier in this thread posted that the "abortion as birth control" argument is a strawman and that is the truth that far too many people on the pro-life side refuse to accept. It would be as if all of the pro-choice camp posited that the only reason pro-lifers want to ban abortion is to make sure we keep a poor underclass who are ill-equipped to raise children that then become more bodies to keep the poor underclass populated.

I don't consider myself pro-life OR pro-choice but I do believe that most of those that are in the pro-life camp simply believe that life begins at conception, fetuses are babies and that's why abortion is wrong. It would be nice if most of the pro-life camp didn't cling to the simple-minded beliefs of the extreme wing of their movement who spout the simple-minded things they do in an effort to demonize those on the pro-choice side of the argument.

I know abstinence is a futile argument, and not even worth bringing up, even though that is the best answer. People love sex (hey, who doesn't? ) but too often, and even a couple times is too often, people don't want to assume the responsibility (or possible responsibility) of their actions.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

What does that mean, "the responsibility of their actions"? Those words don't mean anything, it's just rhetoric to justify an as of yet unexplained belief the conception must be brought to fruition. Meanwhile that forced to term offspring may end up in an environment in which they are unwanted, unloved, not cared for, not properly raised, fed nor educated and the cycle of hell continues. Oh and from Day 1 of their first breath outside the womb the established right doesn't give a flying eff what happens to him/her because they're now on their own.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

What does that mean, "the responsibility of their actions"? Those words don't mean anything, it's just rhetoric to justify an as of yet unexplained belief the conception must be brought to fruition. Meanwhile that forced to term offspring may end up in an environment in which they are unwanted, unloved, not cared for, not properly raised, fed nor educated and the cycle of hell continues. Oh and from Day 1 of their first breath outside the womb the established right doesn't give a flying eff what happens to him/her because they're now on their own.

It means that if you engage in an action, you will be responsible for any and all outcomes. To me, just b/c you wanna bang doesn't excuse you from using abortion just because you "didn't mean to have a child."

I have strong feelings against "Oh, yeah, I had sex last night, I'll just 'fix it' because I don't want a baby." (Note: NOT putting all this on women; men should be just as responsible for these situations, too).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

They don't put the legal notices online and it's fun to see the bankruptcies and the new zoning projects.

They don't? That's really weird -- they ought to, particularly as they would be easier to index and status. Though maybe the whole idea is to obscure them so people can't properly respond.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Situations like Ms. Handlers (two at age sixteen due to acknowledge unprotected sex) tends to make folks skeptical of that statement.

Anecdotes do not connote a strong argument.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Anecdotes do not connote a strong argument.

The trouble is, there are many more stories like Ms Handler's that make it a topic of discussion.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I get and agree with personal gun safety. But at what point do we care about others that happen to be near those with guns. What sorts of classes can they take to be safer when they're near someone toting a gun?

Many of those same states are ones where physicians MUST show women pictures of a fetus before performing an abortion or doing all sorts of other things that most health care professionals find unnecessary and intrusive beforehand. It's pure hypocrisy on the part of right-wing politicians who oppose both abortion and virtually any attempt to further restrict any regulation on firearm ownership.

My knee jerk response to this question is they have no problem if people get killed off after they have a name. They also have no problem blocking access to birth control

ND = Notre Dame? If so, you should understand the difference between the murder of a baby inside its mother's womb and posession of a firearm. If not, then, cozy right up next to Fr. Jenkins who apparently doesn't either.

I think it is irresponsible to both think of abortion as birth control AND to think that Chelsea Handler is indicative of the vast majority of women who end their pregnancies IF what she says is even true. Someone earlier in this thread posted that the "abortion as birth control" argument is a strawman and that is the truth that far too many people on the pro-life side refuse to accept. It would be as if all of the pro-choice camp posited that the only reason pro-lifers want to ban abortion is to make sure we keep a poor underclass who are ill-equipped to raise children that then become more bodies to keep the poor underclass populated.

I don't consider myself pro-life OR pro-choice but I do believe that most of those that are in the pro-life camp simply believe that life begins at conception, fetuses are babies and that's why abortion is wrong. It would be nice if most of the pro-life camp didn't cling to the simple-minded beliefs of the extreme wing of their movement who spout the simple-minded things they do in an effort to demonize those on the pro-choice side of the argument.

Agree completely with this post. I would feel a heck of a lot better if they didn't also try to block peoples access to birth control, tell people it is immoral to use it and did not try to prevent funding for social net programs like WIC, Head Start, housing assistance etc. Out of the same mouth that tells people they should not have an abortion comes they should not have children they cannot afford so not my problem when the family has no resources. They also want to prevent sex ed.

I know abstinence is a futile argument, and not even worth bringing up, even though that is the best answer. People love sex (hey, who doesn't? ) but too often, and even a couple times is too often, people don't want to assume the responsibility (or possible responsibility) of their actions.

Birth control fails. Much as I would love to say people are aware of this you would be amazed at the number of people who are unaware that birth control fails. They think if you use it perfectly it works 100% of the time. I personally have cared for a couple who got pregnant despite her having a tubal ligation and he having a vasectomy. Yes, he did get tested before they messed around. What part of their having sex was not responsible?

What does that mean, "the responsibility of their actions"? Those words don't mean anything, it's just rhetoric to justify an as of yet unexplained belief the conception must be brought to fruition. Meanwhile that forced to term offspring may end up in an environment in which they are unwanted, unloved, not cared for, not properly raised, fed nor educated and the cycle of hell continues. Oh and from Day 1 of their first breath outside the womb the established right doesn't give a flying eff what happens to him/her because they're now on their own.

This. so much this. Local to where I was they had clinics that provided birth control and women's health care. They had these in the High Schools. Romney cut the funding (in his attempt to pretend he was balancing the budget) the pregnancy rate skyrocketed and the AB rate went up. They refunded the clinics and viola the rate went way down. Still what happens to those you who do come into the world? We tell people they should be responsible yet we make it difficult to be responsible cutting funding to women's clinics, social nets. And please do not tell me they should not be funded because they may provide abortions. Clinics would much rather have the ability to prevent the need.

Do I like the concept of abortion? Nope. I do not. Am I sure when life begins? Nope, I am not. The Church used to say quickening and then changed its mind. I would prefer that the pregnancy was prevented in the first place- then no one has to play God and pretend they know the answer that is impossible to prove. Either way we have a choice- pontificating about how bad these people are or being pragmatic and thinking of ways to break the cycle. That means giving people access to prevention and if prevention fails or if they are 'irresponsible', making dam sure the child that results and its parents have access to good nutrition, social supports, education, even if we think they are gaming the system.

 

[LynahFan]

I have friends who accidentally got pregnant...in med school, where she would go on to be an OB-GYN. She said, "It's just so embarrassing - OF COURSE I know how this works..." Still happily married with three kids.