I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech

Started by Rider of Wind, September 30, 2010, 03:26:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zakharra

 No. You can vote for people to send to Congress or state legislature to make laws. I do not believe all states allow the voters to directly vote on laws, bypassing the legislature. This is not a pure democracy. Each democracy type makes it's own choices and right now, in several states, abortion is legal up to the day of birth. LEGAL.

Zakharra

Quote from: mystictiger on December 04, 2010, 10:38:57 PM
Er. No. Where did I say that? Which part of 'before 24 weeks is fine' suggest this?

  I was being very clear.. PREGNANCY. Full term, puts a huge strain on a woman's body. Not just part of a pregnancy, but the entire thing from conception to birth and afterward is a strain and exercise in pain no man will ever know. Men get off easy. 

Trieste

Sigh.

"She shouldn't splay her legs."

"If you don't want to have a child, don't have sex."

These are frustratingly sex-negative comments that, once again, demonize the decision to have sex. To choose to engage in sex for something other than procreation. To enjoy it. If you choose to have sex, you deserve what you get.

When did a child become a punishment?

Why is having kids become a 'consequence' used to deter people from having sex? The irony is that I see the same people lamenting the lack of good parenting skills in the world. Why? You want to force people to have children they don't want.

It's yet another symptom of the moral arguments that anti-choice folks like to base their arguments on. It's as if some folks just can't stand the idea of other folks having guilt-free casual sex. There has to be limits. Others' morality has no place in my sex life, and it's none of anyone's damn business what I do with my vag, or my uterus. It's nobody else's business how much I'm having sex, and it's nobody's business but my doctors' how I go about dealing with the consequences. There is no reason to force more unwanted children into the world when we already have so many people that we are straining our planet's resources. Not only is it irresponsible, it's moronic and vengeful.

It is nobody's right to determine the right of another person to make use of medical technology to better their own lives - even if the first person is the one footing the bill. Get your own uterus, and then you can rule that with your damn moralistic iron fist.

mystictiger

#78
I would broadly agree with Trieste except for one thing:

QuoteIt is nobody's right to determine the right of another person to make use of medical technology to better their own lives - even if the first person is the one footing the bill. Get your own uterus, and then you can rule that with your damn moralistic iron fist.

Where taxes are paid to provide that medical technology (such as those of us who live under the Death Panels / NHS), there should be some limit placed on consensus. I say 'should' because my taxes have gone to support armed conflicts in at least two countries. I don't want 70 yearolds to receive IVF, or smokers to receive new lungs - there is only a limited supply of money to go around, and I'd rather it went to the deserving sick.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that access to medical technology is right. It's a privilege.

Having said that, if you haven't worked out that you're patient by Week 24 then you're probably not going to make an ideal parent anyway.

This is why I'm glad to have male plumbing - I can pee standing up and I don't have to worry about such matters!
Want a system game? I got system games!

Trieste

Of course you have to worry about such matters; it just took them longer (ridiculously, inexcusably so) to come up with birth control that works with your plumbing.

Edit: The above line is addressing mystic up there, but hereafter the 'you's are meant to be generic. Sorry about that.

And to be honest, if you don't think that smokers are 'deserving', then I suggest you work to make smoking illegal. Not to be snippy, but either make something legal or don't; this paternalistic crap about how smokers are a pathetic breed who don't deserve medical treatment because they are making use of a legal substance that happens to also be a popular source of tax money is also inexcusable in my book. Either accept that other adults are not going to make the same choices as you are, or come out and criminalize cigarettes.

Given the taxes on tobacco, it's a) unlikely that it will be made illegal and b) quite likely that your hypothetical smoker has paid quite enough for his new lung already.

I could go on for hours on that topic (say, diabetics who don't take their meds? Sun-worshipers who develop cancer? I'm sure you get my drift) but it's off-topic for the thread, so getting back to the point: abortion is a legal medical procedure, and should certainly not be made illegal for moral reasons that are not shared by everyone. The legalization of abortion has been tied to drops in crime rates, and lower mortality of both infants and women.

Infants because 'mothers' who would otherwise have been drugged out through the entire pregnancy are now able to just abort safely and be done with it.

Women because you don't have young girls going to get their reproductive organs mangled with rusty, unclean instruments.

It is obviously a benefit to our greater society to keep it legal.

I can understand being against getting an abortion for oneself. I can respect that. It's cool. I myself would probably not get one if I found myself pregnant, despite being vehemently child-free. However, it is unacceptable and the epitome of hubris to try to impress my morality on another person. It is not acceptable to try to do so. It should absolutely be a choice made between a woman and her doctor, and possibly the father of the baby. It should not be an option for anyone else to be involved, and certainly not some overpaid, underhanded politician that spends most of his time across the country in a cushy D.C. apartment, surrounded by rent boys and yes-men.

Harrumph.

mystictiger

QuoteOf course you have to worry about such matters; it just took them longer (ridiculously, inexcusably so) to come up with birth control that works with your plumbing.

Edit: The above line is addressing mystic up there, but hereafter the 'you's are meant to be generic. Sorry about that.

Contraception isn't the same thing as abortion. There's nothing that I could take that would induce an abortion. I'm all for contraception. :P

QuoteAnd to be honest, if you don't think that smokers are 'deserving', then I suggest you work to make smoking illegal. Not to be snippy, but either make something legal or don't; this paternalistic crap about how smokers are a pathetic breed who don't deserve medical treatment because they are making use of a legal substance that happens to also be a popular source of tax money is also inexcusable in my book.

In the event that healthcare funding was infinite, then yes, spread the love.

When it isn't, I think a degree prioritisation is necessary. If I had the choice of giving a donor heart to a 20 year old or a 50 year old - and I had just the one heart - I'd give it to the 20 year old. I don't have particularly high moral horse on this issue, but rather a small budget.

QuoteIt is obviously a benefit to our greater society to keep it legal.

Absolutely. Making something legal doesn't mean making it a right.

I suspect the difference in our positions is down to the meaning of the word 'right'. I do not believe that any patient has a 'right' to receive medical treatment. To me, the idea of having a 'right' is something you demand from the state, or forbids the state from doing. It is clear that there are two types of interaction - positive (in the sense that the state must do something) and negative (the state must refrain from doing something). Negative rights are, to my mind, the only thing that deserves to be called a Right, in that negative rights are real and legal and enforceable. By contrast, the postive goals tend to be aspirational.

If I am lying bleeding on the ground, I don't have a right to treatment. The state can't make me better by refraining to act. Rather, the state has to do something to make me better.

Why does this distinction matter? It's a question of legal theory in the end - if you want a coherent idea of what a right is, then the word 'right' has to include property and ownership. I can only own a defined and distinct thing (for example, a house). You cannot complete a positive goal. You can never be completely and forever healthy.

This doesn't mean that I think people should be left to die. I think the state has an obligation to treat them, but if they die then I haven't breached any human rights in not being able to cure them.

Again, coherence with the rest of the legal system is important to me. Up to 24 weeks? By all means. Abort away. After 24 weeks, the fetus is viable. You should therefore apply the same standards to any other form of human existence. We therefore end up with fairly strong protection to all people who require technological assistance to live. I wouldn't want a coma patient's life support to be turned off merely because it's cheaper to do that than to reduce hospital bureaucracy. Again, protected doesn't mean immune - if you want to do something to get past these protectiones, then you have to have a good reason. "Because I feel like it" is insufficient. Because it will cause suffering, pain, or will be disproportionate? That's a reason.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Alsheriam

Looking at this debate and watching the video could only once again remind me of the reason I made the decision to categorically reject religion. Looking back to my earlier formative years of being a froth-in-the-mouth Baptist, I could only be horrified at the kind of person I was: arrogant, racist, ignorant, close-minded, intolerant, selfish, all too eager to impose my views and worldview onto another person, and unthinking of the feelings of those of other religions.

Thank goodness I no longer partake in this opiate. I've been better off without it.
A/A

Peachie

QuoteI can understand being against getting an abortion for oneself. I can respect that. It's cool. I myself would probably not get one if I found myself pregnant, despite being vehemently child-free. However, it is unacceptable and the epitome of hubris to try to impress my morality on another person. It is not acceptable to try to do so. It should absolutely be a choice made between a woman and her doctor, and possibly the father of the baby. It should not be an option for anyone else to be involved, and certainly not some overpaid, underhanded politician that spends most of his time across the country in a cushy D.C. apartment, surrounded by rent boys and yes-men.

Agreed 100%. Just saying...

Oniya

Quote from: Alsheriam on December 05, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Looking at this debate and watching the video could only once again remind me of the reason I made the decision to categorically reject religion. Looking back to my earlier formative years of being a froth-in-the-mouth Baptist, I could only be horrified at the kind of person I was: arrogant, racist, ignorant, close-minded, intolerant, selfish, all too eager to impose my views and worldview onto another person, and unthinking of the feelings of those of other religions.

Thank goodness I no longer partake in this opiate. I've been better off without it.

Religion does not mandate intolerance, nor is it the only source thereof.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Alsheriam

Quote from: Oniya on December 05, 2010, 06:18:25 PM
Religion does not mandate intolerance, nor is it the only source thereof.

I was constantly instructed by my parents and church during my childhood that the other Asian races we lived with in Singapore (predominantly Muslim Malays, Hindu/Muslim Indians) were inferior and disgusting because they did not worship God. We Chinese are far more capable and potent at intolerance than Caucasians, and I can confidently assert that if given the opportunity, the Chinese can make the Klan look like a tea party in comparison. They constantly quoted from the Bible, talking about how God instructed the faithful to crush all false idols, and how Moses acted towards the worship of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai and how we should all act like Moses in that regard.

That prompted me as a child to disrespectfully kick over the miniature altars of other people's religions.

If that isn't a case of religion eagerly giving out the mandate for intolerance, then.. *shrugs*
A/A

Oniya

I did not say that your religious upbringing and cultural background did not result in a period of intolerance, only that religion in general does not necessitate intolerance.  As an example, Unitarian Universalists are remarkably welcoming of other faiths, beliefs, and lifestyles.  I've seen a devout Roman Catholic sit shoulder to shoulder with an equally devout Pagan and the only argument was over the last crescent roll.  I have also seen people who espouse no religious affiliation at all who are remarkably intolerant. 

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

Quote from: Alsheriam on December 05, 2010, 08:22:13 PM
We Chinese are far more capable and potent at intolerance than Caucasians

Not to be difficult, but how is this not indulging in racism? :P

Alsheriam

Quote from: Trieste on December 05, 2010, 08:42:04 PM
Not to be difficult, but how is this not indulging in racism? :P

It's not so much of indulging in racism but more of a frank statement of an observation I've made of my own race. Fortunately, I decided to educate myself proper and consider myself colorblind, but that isn't the case for the vast majority of the Chinese people.
A/A

DarklingAlice

Not to be difficult, but can this stop being about Alsheriam's irrelevant personal anecdotes and maybe drift back towards topic? :P

If we must make glaring generalizations on the nature of religion perhaps it could be relevant to religion's positions on abortion? Also might be nice to stop using the word religion as a synonym for Christianity, but maybe that is asking too much...
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Trieste


Alsheriam

Unfortunately it's the Judeo-Christian and Islamic brands of 'religion' that have been causing the most amount of trouble in societies all over, so it's rather inevitable to use 'religion' as a synonym for 'Christianity'.
A/A

DarklingAlice

#91
Wouldn't it then make more sense to let 'religion' refer the all three?

Regardless, as Oniya's inclusion of Wiccans and the UUs shows that what wasn't the definition she was working under. I just think that unless we're talking with the same terms, we're going to be talking at cross purposes. I'm not often going to speak up in favor of religion, and oh boy can I tell all sorts of disturbing stories of my childhood in both Baptists, Catholic, and non-denominational Protestant communities...I just am not sure that it is relevant to a larger discussion of the attitudes of the religious (and I mean that universally) on abortion.

I'm not a fan of generalization without data.

EDIT: Although, that said we can certainly say that we personally have had bad experiences with Christianity, and that the video in the OP is repugnant and filled with specious claims.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Trieste

Had forgotten that there was a video in the OP that I was unable to watch when it was posted due to being at school.

She certainly has a high opinion of herself. She's nothing more than a real-life troll. I find her statements offensive and arrogant, especially since she's standing there denouncing everyone else's arrogance. She's a hypocrite, intentional or no. I don't find her well-spoken or amazing at all.

mystictiger

I very much doubt that many of us here are in her 'target audience'.

I understand that the meeting she was addressing was a pro-life rally. This context is important - she's not trying to convince people, but to reaffirm them. If you don't buy her central premise, you're necessarily going to find her irritating and dull. Kind of like going to watch baseball if you're a cricket fan.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Alsheriam on December 05, 2010, 09:00:26 PM
Unfortunately it's the Judeo-Christian and Islamic brands of 'religion' that have been causing the most amount of trouble in societies all over, so it's rather inevitable to use 'religion' as a synonym for 'Christianity'.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume Muslims and Jews would disagree with that generalization, and vehemently so.

Noelle

As would every other religion in the world, I'm sure, but we're not talking about what's technically politically correct, we're talking about colloquial usage, which is a whole different monster, and besides that, discussing why it's not fair to use Christianity and religion interchangeably isn't really on-topic.

Mystictiger has a point here, too; she was mostly just preaching to the choir, but I do find it sad that instead of being able to make her point intelligently and logically, that instead she resorts to emotional blackmail and indirect shaming on women like her mother, painting them to be sad, hollow people. Both sides are guilty of such tactics, and especially so when they're talking to others in their following.

mystictiger

Again, you tailor your message to your audience. The kind of people that I have met at pro-life groups don't do so from a logical and considered appreciation of the facts, but rather a visceral reaction to it.

Why attend meetings? Because this is an issue that I sit on the fence about. It was interesting to see the kind of rhetoric deployed by both sides.

The pro-choice group meeting at the University was full of a discourse of human rights, and of the importance of women's rights against the 'malestream' whilst the people at the various clinics described it in much more mechanical, biological terms. By contrast, the pro-life group at a local catholic church described it purely as a question of morality, while the non-religious university society put it in again in terms of human rights.

Both sides are of course going to frame the debate in words, phrases, and terms that best suit their agenda. People call themselves 'pro-choice' not 'pro-feticide' or 'anti-life'.

I suspect that it would be a very small minority of people who would attend a 'non-spinned' portrayal of this debate. The closest I actually found were the medics who performed the procedure.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Oniya

Unless there's a 'zero-population growth' group out there like there is in China, I don't know of any people out there saying that women must have abortions, in the same way that the pro-life crowd says that women must not have abortions.  The opponents to the pro-life crowd say that the decision should be up to the mother or parents involved (a rapist is not a parent, and therefore does not deserve a say), not some outside regulatory group.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Alsheriam

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on December 06, 2010, 07:41:34 AM
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and presume Muslims and Jews would disagree with that generalization, and vehemently so.

*glances at the two millennia of mutual hate in the Middle East, then looks once more at the explosions of terrorism perpetrated by adherents to both sides*

Really?

I live in a country where coexisting with people of every other creed is a fact of life. I took part in an operation where I had to chase after an escaped terrorist ringleader with fellow Malay Muslim conscripts and I'd trust them to watch my back any day if I ever had to be called up for emergency reservist duty. Frank discussions with these lifelong friends of mine yielded admissions from that the conflict between those two religions has been largely unproductive to society at large, and the only reason they remain adhering to Islam is because apostasy (renouncing oneself's own religion) is widely reviled in the Malay community and will get them thrown out of their houses and disowned by their entire families.

This isn't any different in Muslim communities in other countries, such as Moroccan Muslims in the Netherlands, where I was told by an exchange student who hung out here that she was banned from seeing other boys, listening to any kind of music and many other things we take for granted as normal till she was 20, ran away from home and decided to renounce Islam.

But I digress. This thread is about abortion after all. I hold a very dim view of people who oppose abortion based on religious or emotivist reasons, who have no other reference of knowledge other than the bible and quote incessantly from it and expect educated people to take them seriously.
A/A

Trieste

Yes, while there have been some meanderings, please try to keep it on topic.