Pro choice

[Thomas Paul]

You refuse to get the argument, which distinguishes between 'pro abortion' and 'pro choice'.
You are correct that I refuse to distinguish between the two. What I wonder is why those who like to talk about "choice" don't want to admit that one of the choices involves abortion.

[Mapraputa Is]

GB: So hop on off of that "the staff is biased and unfair" soapbox and keep on talkin'.
Do you imply that my post somehow suggested that "the staff is biased and unfair"? Where did you see it? I was trying to comfort Warren by pointing out that nobody is exempted from "be nice" rule, not even sheriffs themselves. And that with a dozen of sheriffs around, it is wiser not to spend too much time tracking reasons for censoring each and every post, but to move on. Hope I make it clear this time.
But thank you for advice...

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
GB: So hop on off of that "the staff is biased and unfair" soapbox and keep on talkin'.
Do you imply that my post somehow suggested that "the staff is biased and unfair"? Where did you see it? I was trying to comfort Warren by pointing out that nobody is exempted from "be nice" rule, not even sheriffs themselves. And that with a dozen of sheriffs around, it is wiser not to spend too much time tracking reasons for censoring each and every post, but to move on. Hope I make it clear this time.
But thank you for advice...

No no, my post was directed to Warren. Sorry about that Map.

[Mapraputa Is]

Ok then. Hope Warren will get some good chuckles out of this.
"Our lack of cooperation is mutual"
Self-annihilating sentences

[Mapraputa Is]

Gregg: I submit that Pro-Choice'rs don't like this because calling themselves Pro-Abortion'ers sounds worse. But it's the same thing.
How about if we call the opposing party "pro-fetus"?

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
If it will make you feel better, Warren, my response to your post was deleted as well.

I don't feel bad ... just confused. I honestly don't see how the deleted portion of my post could be considered 'not nice'. I just wanted to let Thomas know why I wasn't responding to his question.
Same goes for my previously deleted response to Gregg's deleted post, but that one I understand - or rather, I understand that post of mine got deleted because it was a followup to a post of Gregg's that was getting deleted, though I didn't particularly think that post of Gregg's was 'not nice'.
As for 'keep on posting', I don't see the point when I have no way to predict what's acceptable and what's not.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What I wonder is why those who like to talk about "choice" don't want to admit that one of the choices involves abortion.

I think that's an overly generalized observation.
I am guessing that most "pro-choice" people don't want to get pinned down to talking about abortion and nothing else, which is the only thing many Pro-Life advocates focus on. Of course "choice" includes choosing to abort a pregnancy. But let's admit that people who come out and say this often have to put up with a lot of blather.
By the same token, "Pro-Life" seems like one big overreaching moniker to me. I know Pro-Lifers who feel abortion is wrong for any reason but feel the death penalty is sound crminal justice. So, pro-certain life, is it?
But seriously, everyone puts a best face on what they're about and that's just human nature. We can call it misleading if we want to, but that's how it works. People want others to see their best side.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
By the same token, "Pro-Life" seems like one big overreaching moniker to me.

I'm perfectly willing to be called anti-abortion if you will agree to be called pro-abortion.

[Stefan Wagner]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

A. What exact argument am I refusing to get?
B. What term would you prefer?
C. How is inncocent babies suggestive propaganda? What propaganda am I spreading with that term?
There is no difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, ...

AB: I'm not pro abortion. That's the point. I'm pro right of abortion which is a different thing.
It's not only the question how it sounds. It's a semantic difference, and it therefore must sound different.
Pro abortion suggests, that one is generally pro abortion.
I would always prefer to find a solution, to avoid abortion, and changing the circumstances, that lead to abortion. In this context, I'm against abortion, but not againt the right of abortion.
C: First of all: A foetus isn't a baby.
Talking about babies provokes certain pictures in mind, pictures of babies, not of foetus.
And what shall that be, an innocent foetus?
Similary you could speak of an innocent Cup of Coffee.
To flag something innocent makes only sense, if the attribute could be missing: a guilty foetus or guilty baby. You see it is a degenerated term.
Talking about 'innocent babies' provokes the question 'are they really innocent' - and yes - surprise - they are.
But nobody ever asked the question the guilt.
Since the whole term only adresses the mood and works with inappropriate expressions, it's suggestive and propaganda.

[Gregg Bolinger]

By the same token, "Pro-Life" seems like one big overreaching moniker to me. I know Pro-Lifers who feel abortion is wrong for any reason but feel the death penalty is sound crminal justice. So, pro-certain life, is it?
I don't know any fetus' that intentianally murdered another human being.
I wondered how long it would take for this comparison to rear its head. But that could be a discussion all on its own.

[Gregg Bolinger]

AB: I'm not pro abortion. That's the point. I'm pro right of abortion which is a different thing.
It's not only the question how it sounds. It's a semantic difference, and it therefore must sound different.
Pro abortion suggests, that one is generally pro abortion.
I would always prefer to find a solution, to avoid abortion, and changing the circumstances, that lead to abortion. In this context, I'm against abortion, but not againt the right of abortion.
Ok then. I'm not against this argument, but I am against the right to argue it.
Talking about babies provokes certain pictures in mind, pictures of babies, not of foetus.
Does it? Does it make you think twice about abortion? If this is propaganda, I will gladly spread it around.
Regardless of whether a fetus is a baby by definition or not, I would like someone to tell me one other living thing on this earth that can go from being considered a dispensable insert choice word here to something so precious and alive as a baby. People need to stop looking at what state it's in and see what that little life becomes.
My wife had her first sonogram at 7 weeks pregnant. She saw the heart beat. The heart beat. A primative heartbeat, but still, a beating heart. Building up itself to beat life giving blood throughout the beings body. Providing oxygen to the brain.
At week 10, you can see facial features, hands, feet, toes. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.
And yet, still is not considered a human life. You know what. I am done with this thread. I can no longer discuss something like this in a forum where I cannot truly express myself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I can't express myself in here the way I want. I don't want this forum to be that kind of place. So I will gladly bow out of this one.
[ May 06, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I know Pro-Lifers who feel abortion is wrong for any reason but feel the death penalty is sound crminal justice.

I almost made an argument like this a few days ago, but I did some research looking for statistics to back me up, and found basically the opposite: that support for the death penalty has dropped dramatically among pro-lifers over the past 15 years, especially among Catholics. A sizeable majority of American pro-lifers now apparently maintain a consistent position on the death penalty issue. This was a pleasant surprise to me and suggests that perhaps my fellow Americans are a bit more thoughtful than I gave them credit for.

[John Dunn]

For anyone that wants to REALLY learn about the miracle of human conception,
read the chapter on "ovaries" in this book:
Woman : An Initimate Geography by Natalie Angier
Very amazing what goes on prior to a woman menstrating (PMS) and then the many intricate steps involved to prepare the ovaries to release an egg, the hormones to prepare the uterus for the arrival of a fertilized egg and the various process involved in preparing the environment for the simplistic, and quick dying sperm (no pun intended!!!) Then the steps in getting the fertilized egg to stick around (pun intended) and to be fed by the placenta.
Get this a man will produce 300 - 500 MILLION sperm during an orgasm. (100 Million will still do the trick, so even low-sperm count men can produce children.) but anyway, of those MILLIONS many will die before getting to the egg. Sperm need to a alkaline environment in an otherwise normally acidic arena, so that's where that jelly like substance all the ladies are familiar with each month comes in. Without that, a woman will have a VERY hard time getting pregnant. While the egg "fertilization window" is short (just 12 to 24 hours), sperm can live up to five days -- and sometimes longer -- in the cervical mucus, which is most abundant close to ovulation. The mucus is where the sperm will be safe so that if an egg just happens to pass by they can go attempt to push their way in. Each sperm that hits an egg weakens the outter lining. Eventually after weaking it enough ONE sperm will penetrate and ta-da an egg is fertilized!!! Imagine if our Moms twitched after sex!!?? we'd be someone else!!! Come to think of it, isn't this the epitomy of the Nash Equilibrium??
So consider the above: We are one out of 300 - 500 MILLION different prospective offspring. What better reason to honor your individuality??

[Angela Poynton]

I've had a whole post deleted, and no message to tell me why. Trust me, there is no "Moderators rule" here.
If whoever did delete my post could explain to me why I'd appreciate it, i took a lot of time over that trying to ensure it wasn't inflamatory.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
I've had a whole post deleted, and no message to tell me why. Trust me, there is no "Moderators rule" here.
If whoever did delete my post could explain to me why I'd appreciate it, i took a lot of time over that trying to ensure it wasn't inflamatory.

It's part of the reason that MD isn't nearly what it used to be. A moderator misreads or misunderstands your post and deletes it. Since I normally don't go back and reread a thread I have no idea if any of my posts have been edited or deleted. But I guess those who wanted a "friendlier" MD are getting what they wanted, right Angela?

[Angela Poynton]

I'd rather have the post deleted if it was read as inflamatory, I just would like to know where I went wrong. I've no objection to it being deleted I'd just appreciate knowing why it was so I don't make the same mistake twice.

[Max Habibi]

Angela,
I'm not aware of who deleted your post either. Do you want to follow up in MO?
M

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
I've had a whole post deleted, and no message to tell me why. Trust me, there is no "Moderators rule" here.
If whoever did delete my post could explain to me why I'd appreciate it, i took a lot of time over that trying to ensure it wasn't inflamatory.

Sorry to hear that, Angela. It certainly wasn't me though. I've seen some posts in this thread by you and didn't see anything that i considered inflammatory or "not nice".

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

I'm perfectly willing to be called anti-abortion if you will agree to be called pro-abortion.

Touche. But we'd have to do it in some special Scrappers' Forum, I think.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
I'd rather have the post deleted if it was read as inflamatory, I just would like to know where I went wrong. I've no objection to it being deleted I'd just appreciate knowing why it was so I don't make the same mistake twice.

Sure wasn't me.

[Bert Bates]

I can't resist taking another run at this...
Let's say we were in a "spaceship" that had a very definite carrying capacity. (Actually, I think we ARE in a spaceship with a very definite carrying capacity - we just don't quite know yet what that capacity is.)
Anyway, due to the carrying capacity problem, let's say that very strict limits were placed on the number of pregancies / couple. What should be done when a couple gets pregnant more than their fair share? Somebody down the line is going to lose out. Does the "extra" fetus have more rights than the "potential" fetus of another couple? And, to take the argument further, what about the rights of the "extra" fetus'es offspring? Aren't they potentially making the situation exponentially (sp?) worse?

[HS Thomas]

Imagine if "you" were the extra "potential" foetus and go from there.....
A foetus might have rights to be born or not.(seemingly decided by families and ruling courts of law).Foetuses cannot express their decision but born babies certainly make known their rights. Don't know of any babies who say "Thank you very much , I'll just lie here and don't give me any food or clean me up. No Cuddles. No walkies. "

France's highest court of appeal has ruled that handicapped children are entitled to compensation if their mothers were not given the chance of an abortion. The ruling follows a case brought by three families with physically deformed children, who argued that if doctors had detected the foetuses' disabilities they would have had the pregnancies terminated.
Doctors and campaigners for the disabled have reacted furiously, describing the decision by the Cour de Cassation as an incitement to eugenics.
The ruling was a surprise because it upheld a widely condemned landmark decision - known as the Perruche case - which awarded a mentally retarded boy damages last year because he had not been aborted.
The case was widely described as establishing in law a disabled child's "right not to be born."

The families in this case obviously cannot cope with their childrens disability. Most disabled people would uphold their right to be born as would a "potential" foetus IMO if it could.
[ May 07, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[John Dunn]

I think the terms should be pro-Life with a capital 'L' and pro-abortion with a small 'a'; so no one gets to thinking that someone who is pro-abortion really means pro-ABORTION! Oh yeah, and make the terms while we are on a spaceship.
Hey, does anyone know what we were talking about in this thread anyway?
I have posed many questions that no one seems to be able to make the slightest comment on.
If a woman gets pregnant and nobody is around to hear her choice about whether or not it was a child, then would it be double murder if she was murdered?
Why should a man ever have to be a father if he is not financially ready and did not plan getting a woman pregnant?
At what point does a man no longer have a choice when it comes to pregnancy?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
Anyway, due to the carrying capacity problem, let's say that very strict limits were placed on the number of pregancies / couple. What should be done when a couple gets pregnant more than their fair share?

I think when people turn 30 we should kill them. Anyone who gets pregnant without a government permit is immediately executed and their corpse is left in public view as a warning.

[Warren Dew]

The case was widely described as establishing in law a disabled child's "right not to be born."

That's hilarious! I love it!
I would definitely prefer having been aborted to having been born mentally retarded, myself.
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

I love it!
I would definitely prefer having been aborted to having been born mentally retarded, myself.

Wonder how long will it be before the "state" or insurance company refuses to cover medical expenses for handicapped children based on tests performed before the child was born.
These would be very dehumanising decisions. We are really discussing what humanity is all about.Doctors' fear of being sued for a mis-diagnosis would encourage them to recommend abortions at the smallest hint of a disability.
Never mind , tripping into eugenics and the search of a perfect child and hot housing "geniuses". Which would mean 99.5% of people on this planet have NO rights to be born.
In tommorrow's or even today's world a Stephen Hawking would be squashed in the delivery room.
[ May 07, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[John Dunn]

HS Doctors' fear of being sued for a mis-diagnosis would encourage them to recommend abortions at the smallest hint of a disability.
'encourage' is speculation, isn't it? Right now, TODAY, doctor's will tell you your options, ever so tactfully, when tradegy is pending. In my recent experience it was not very pleasurable for the doctors. The closest thing to skating on thin ice that I can think of...

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
I would definitely prefer having been aborted to having been born mentally retarded, myself.

Meanwhile, I love my son very much and he loves me very much in spite of his being mentally retarded.

[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
'encourage' is speculation, isn't it? Right now, TODAY, doctor's will tell you your options, ever so tactfully, when tradegy is pending. In my recent experience it was not very pleasurable for the doctors. The closest thing to skating on thin ice that I can think of...

As some who can speak from experience, doctors will think you are a fool for not having an abortion and do everything in their power to convince you to have one.
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Too bad your parents didn't know that. Meanwhile, I love my son very much and he loves me very much in spite of his being mentally retarded.

Just goes to show how we each have our individual preferences, and no one solution is best for everyone.

[Bert Bates]

John -
We ARE on a spaceship!

[Alton Hernandez]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
I can't resist taking another run at this...
Let's say we were in a "spaceship" that had a very definite carrying capacity. (Actually, I think we ARE in a spaceship with a very definite carrying capacity - we just don't quite know yet what that capacity is.)
Anyway, due to the carrying capacity problem, let's say that very strict limits were placed on the number of pregancies / couple. What should be done when a couple gets pregnant more than their fair share? Somebody down the line is going to lose out. Does the "extra" fetus have more rights than the "potential" fetus of another couple? And, to take the argument further, what about the rights of the "extra" fetus'es offspring? Aren't they potentially making the situation exponentially (sp?) worse?

I saw this movie once called "Logan's Run". The movie is similar to your scenario. The people where enclosed in a city that has limited capacity. But instead of choosing between fetuses, they instead decreed that people that had reached the age of 30 must die.
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Alton Hernandez ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Alton Hernandez:

I saw this movie once called "Logan's Run". The movie is similar to your scenario. The people where enclosed in a city that has limited capacity. But instead of choosing between fetuses, they instead decreed that people that had reached the age of 30 must die.
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Alton Hernandez ]

That's a common scenario.
Asimov may have been the first to put it to words in a bestseller book back in the 1940s.
At 50 (I think it was) every human was euthanised except if a special pardon was issued beforehand (which was reserved mainly for great scientists. Asimov believed in perfect societies without corruption or he'd have spent some time on that issue I think).
Children could only be conceived after receiving a license for each child (maximum of one child per person except again with special permission, and children can be withheld completely for whatever reason (for example indeed criminals and retarded people).
Similar scenarios crop up all over Science Fiction. For example the birthright lotteries in Larry Niven's books, complete with a Roman style arena where people can fight to the death to get more birthrights (looser dies, voiding his birthright and another one to replace himself to the winner).

[Max Habibi]

Let's keep the personal wisecracks to a minimum.
M

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

The question seems to boil down to whether or not the fetus is a baby or not, and if not, when it becomes a baby. The answer to this (in this thread) has ranged from before conception (an unfertilized egg) to at birth.

This is an emotional topic. But emotions will not convince anyone of anything.

[Tony Alicea]

The fetus before birth is just an extension of the woman's body, just like her appendix or tonsils. Just because it looks different, it is no different.
We get those living organisms out all of the time when they are a threat to the woman's life.
But even more so, it's a woman's prerogative to have sovereignty over her body at all, repeat ALL times.
Otherwise we become a tyrannical, fascist state.
Anyways, the human life begins with the first Breath of Life. Not before.
If you don't believe in abortion then by all means don't have one.
Abortion is NOT murder. Not even close!
Please mind your own business people! And let others do the same, for God's Sake!
Signed,
REASON
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
I would definitely prefer having been aborted to having been born mentally retarded, myself.

How do you know that? Perhaps you mean that you wouldn't want to deal with a retarded son, but that's different. Or perhaps you mean that you wouldn't want to continue to live if you became retarded while still having the capacity to remember what it was like to be more intelligent? Have you ever talked to a retarded person and asked him whether he preferred to be dead?
I once read a short story about a man who was the subject of an experiment. He became smarter and smarter. In fact, he became a genius. However, for a reason I can't remember now, he gradually became less and less intelligent until he was back at his original intelligence level. However, when he was at that level, although he knew he was different than the masses, he didn't wish he was dead. Rather, he enjoyed life at the level he was at.

Do you think that a young child, whose intelligence level is less than yours, does not enjoy life because he doesn't think through things the way you do?

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
The fetus before birth is ...

is?

But even more so, it's a woman's prerogative ...

is?

Anyways, the human life begins with ...

You think that it begins with?

If you don't believe in abortion then by all means don't have one.

Abortion is NOT ...

is NOT?

I see lots of absolute statements here. Are you absolutely sure that you are absolutely correct in what you believe to be true?

Please mind your own business people!

Huh?

And let others do the same, for God's Sake!

Is it for God's sake or for yours?

REASON


[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[John Smith]

MdeQ: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion? If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.
That's an urban legend. Beethoven's mother, Maria Magdelena Keverig, married Bethoven's father in 1767, and Ludwig was born in 1770, only three years later. And if Ludwig was born out of wedlock, it would still be nearly impossible for him to be the 9th child -- his mother was born in 1746, so she was only 23 years when Ludwig was born. It's somewhat unsettling when the distorted information is used to support one's case.
The fact is, Ludwig was the second of seven children, and he was the first to survive. Here is the family tree. It also looks like there is no evidence for Ludwig's deaf, blind, or mentally retarded siblings or his mother having had syphilis.