Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:04 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.


Oh, I dunno, that might look cool if we get some fog, some powerful lights, and you possibly take on an Austrian-English accent saying "I'm here to save you!" ;)

NeoThermic
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:05 pm

NeoThermic wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.


Oh, I dunno, that might look cool if we get some fog, some powerful lights, and you possibly take on an Austrian-English accent saying "I'm here to save you!" ;)

NeoThermic


Don't forget the music!
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:07 pm

NeoThermic wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.


Oh, I dunno, that might look cool if we get some fog, some powerful lights, and you possibly take on an Austrian-English accent saying "I'm here to save you!" ;)

NeoThermic

Hmm, I don't think it'd work. I wouldn't be able to add in "and pump you up" at the end... :wink:
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:11 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.


Oh, I dunno, that might look cool if we get some fog, some powerful lights, and you possibly take on an Austrian-English accent saying "I'm here to save you!" ;)

NeoThermic

Hmm, I don't think it'd work. I wouldn't be able to add in "and pump you up" at the end... :wink:


Change the word "pump" with "rise"? ;)

NeoThermic
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:21 pm

NeoThermic wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.


Oh, I dunno, that might look cool if we get some fog, some powerful lights, and you possibly take on an Austrian-English accent saying "I'm here to save you!" ;)

NeoThermic

Hmm, I don't think it'd work. I wouldn't be able to add in "and pump you up" at the end... :wink:


Change the word "pump" with "rise"? ;)

NeoThermic

Hmm, "Ve are goink to rise... (clap) ...YOU UP!" It's not nearly as funny.

"Hear me now and believe me later..."
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:26 pm

Feud wrote:I know, and abortion was not an option I had included in such. The point I was trying to make is that life is a series of risks which we accept based upon a cost/benifit basis that we personally determine. Everytime I drive I risk death or injury, but I think the benifits of driving are worth it. Every tiime I east food I have not personally prepared I risk consuming something harmful, but I find the benifit to out weigh the cost. In the case of a couple, even with abortion illegal, I think that they should decided whether the benifits of abstinence out weighs the cost.

I am not going to respond to this right now, as there is a particular point that I am trying to make. If you care to hear my response, ask again in a few posts.

Feud wrote:I agree that if a couple, under no uncertain terms, wants to be 100% free of pregnancy then yes, abstaining is their only option. But I disagree with saying they should not have relations unless they "want to get pregnant". I would say that they should not have those realtions unless they are willing to accept the potentially long lasting consequences of their actions. Wanting a result and accepting that a result may be a potential consequence of a given action are two differant things.

A couple does not want to get pregnant precisely because, under your legal system, they don't want to deal with the long term consequences (which are, I might point out, only possible in a system where termination is not legal -- where termination is legal, there are no long term consequences). Thus, if a couple does not want to get pregnant, they should not have sex. Period. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. I can say exactly the same thing by stating that a couple should only have sex if they want to become pregnant. That is the contrapositive of the original statement, and is as logically valid as the original statement.

In logical terms:
A -> B <=> ¬B -> ¬A
A = a couple does not want to become pregnant
B = a couple may not have sex
A -> B = if a couple does not want to become pregnant, they may not not have sex
¬B -> ¬A = if a couple may have sex, they want to get pregnant

The statements are equivalent, so you are really only arguing semantics. Your statement is logically equivalent to "only couples that want to get pregnant may have sex." I think I have demonstrated that fairly well.

This means, again, by logical extension, that the only reason to have sex is to create children. Before I continue, do you understand that? I am not asking if you agree, only if you understand that this is the next logical step, based upon your statements.

xander
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:40 pm

If they hate kids so much and are so adamant in not having one, why don't they make a bloody surgery and recur to adoption if they change their minds later on?


Feud's point is not that if someone's doing sex they want kids. It is that by doing so they are aware of the consequences and accept it. That's not the same as saying it would not be a bloody annoyance.


However what I can't truly understand is why you're being so self-righteous on this discussion. Even most pro-choice agree that abortion is a terrible thing that should be used only as last resort. You act almost if you want people to make the bloody thing.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:53 pm

Xocrates wrote:However what I can't truly understand is why you're being so self-righteous on this discussion. Even most pro-choice agree that abortion is a terrible thing that should be used only as last resort. You act almost if you want people to make the bloody thing.


xander wrote:No one -- NO ONE -- is pro-abortion. "Pro-abortion" is a term concocted by the anti-abortion crowd* to villainize the pro-choice crowd, and make them look like blood-thirsty, baby killing machines. The fact is that termination is not something that anyone wants. We would all like it if people did not get pregnant when they didn't want to, and abortion was unnecessary. However, there are reasons why a pregnancy might be terminated. The health of the mother is a really good one (and, Ace, I consider it monstrous and in-human that you would allow a woman to die in order to prevent her from terminating a pregnancy).

The problem is that it is nearly impossible to separate the people that "need" abortions, for whatever reasons we have decided are valid, and those that "want" abortions, and are claiming need. There are also many differences in opinion about what constitutes need. There is also the quite valid argument that criminalizing abortion would make things worse -- women will still seek abortions, but the facilities will be less sterile. Women who get abortions for legitimate, legal reasons may be subject to persecution (in addition to whatever other problems they may face from having had the abortion in the first place).

Laws should be put in place in order to protect people's rights. If a law does more harm than good, it is a bad law. Laws criminalizing abortion do more harm than good, as evidenced by past prohibitions (in the US, in the Soviet Union, &c.).

I agree that education is quite important -- people should know about adoption, and contraceptives. Social services should be easily available. Sex education should actually give people some idea what to expect (other than "don't have sex," because that is unrealistic). Situations in which a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy should be reduced as much as possible. I only wish that more anti-abortionists would agree with me on that. I wish that the Catholic church would discuss condoms and pills. I wish that they would allow for human nature, and not just assume that abstinence-only education was useful. I wish that the President of the US felt the same way. That would be wonderful.

xander
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:00 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Xander wrote:Finally: Ace, I have some words for you, but it is late here, and I have been driving all day. I will compose my thoughts tomorrow. Sufficient to say, at the moment I am angered and disgusted by your answers to my questions.

xander

Hmm, apparently I missed all of page 12...

*goes back to read*
Last edited by Ace Rimmer on Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:05 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Xocrates wrote:Finally: Ace, I have some words for you, but it is late here, and I have been driving all day. I will compose my thoughts tomorrow. Sufficient to say, at the moment I am angered and disgusted by your answers to my questions.

xander

Hmm, apparently I missed all of page 12...

*goes back to read*


Pssst... xander said that, not me
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:12 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:-snip-


There is a reason why I said "almost".

Just remember this: from my point of view, pro-choice are just one step short of defending murder, since not only I consider the fetus alive as I also consider it human.

From their point of view, the fetus is not alive and is far less important than the mother (something that I don't agree with) and is in fact part of the mother (something I agree even less).

So, while their arguments seem reasonable from their point of view, they certainly are not from mine. Given the circumstances I consider I acted quite mildly since I accept this difference of concepts.

So why does he act as if he was the voice of absolute reason?




PS: sorry for the double post. I forgot about that other one
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:24 pm

Xocrates wrote:So why does he act as if he was the voice of absolute reason?


Perhaps because his views are supported by science and reason and are consistent?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:35 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Xocrates wrote:So why does he act as if he was the voice of absolute reason?


Perhaps because his views are supported by science and reason and are consistent?


Consistent with yours, you mean?


Mine are equally supported by science and reason and are consistent.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:36 pm

I realize you've said your debate with me is over, however I'd like to respond (in spite of the consequences)...
xander wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Life of the mother. No. Terminating innocent life no matter the justification is and always will be wrong.
[*]Health of the mother. No.

Doctor says to pregnant woman: "The placenta has implanted in the fallopian tube. If you do not terminate, you will likely die. Best case scenario, the tube ruptures, we get to it in time, and you are sterile for the rest of your life. Worst case scenario, the tube ruptures, your body is filled with toxins from the uterus, and you die. In either case, the fetus is not going to make it to term."

You would deny that woman the option of termination because you think that termination is universally bad? You are a monster, and exemplify what is wrong with blind adherence to a specific dogma.

I never said that I would deny that woman the option. In the world in which we live, such circumstances exist and women must deal with them by the only means available, in such a case most likely surgery. For me, this goes back to be "beginning" and I'm sure fits within Gen 3:16 'To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children"...' As I've said before, the circumstance shouldn't exist in the first place nor should the argument.

xander wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Life of the fetus (i.e. the fetus is severely disabled, and is unlikely to survive to term, or long after birth -- i.e. spinobifoda, severe cerebral palsy, &c.). No. I've actually been in this situation. The pregnancy was (naturally) terminated at 6 months. Sever disability wouldn't have (and didn't) change our minds.

We have good friends who have been trying to get pregnant for several years now. They have had very little luck. Earlier this year, they did manage to get pregnant. With twins. The first twin died towards the end of the first trimester, or beginning of the second trimester, and was reabsorbed into the mother's body. Around 5 months into the pregnancy, the mother had an ultrasound that revealed an "anomaly" with the fetus. After a couple more tests and ultrasounds (taking a couple of weeks), the doctors determined that the fetus had severe spinobifoda. The spine and portions of the brain were developing outside of the fetus' body. The doctors said that the pregnancy would probably come to term, but that the fetus had zero chance of surviving much past birth -- maybe a few months, at most. There was also a high probability that the pregnancy would not come to term, in any case.

Given the likelihood of a late term miscarriage (which is a very nasty thing to deal with, and a lot more dangerous than an earlier termination), and the likelihood that the fetus would survive much past birth was incredibly slim, this couple chose to terminate. It was not an easy decision, and should never be easy. However, it saved the mother from great physical risk, and had no real net change, in that the fetus was pretty much DOA anyway.

The fact that you feel that this mother should have carried a stillborn fetus to term disgusts me. You would place the mother at additional risk, all for the sake of religious dogma.

Once again, that was the parents choice, not mine, and I wouldn't/didn't impose anything on them.

xander wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:The mother is raped. No. In my opinion, this is a case of "two wrongs don't make a right". And yes, I have personal and intimate experience with rape and its effects as well. That is, I'm very close to one who was.

Rape is about a person exerting power over another person. It is about completely subjugating a person to another's will. If a woman gets pregnant, and is forced to carry that fetus against her will, the rapist is continuing to subjugate that person. For all intents and purposes, the rape is still occurring, and anyone forcing the woman to carry that fetus is aiding and abetting the rapist. It is not a question of "righting a wrong" -- it is a question of preventing further damage to the woman, both in terms of her mental state, and the physical damage that can occur as part of a pregnancy.

I disagree with you here (obviously). Although the pregnancy is a result of the rape, the fetus is in no way responsible for it. While you may claim that it's preventing 'further damage to the woman' I say you're punishing a person/future person (however you want refer to the fetus) for something another person has done. To me this is akin to saying that the death penalty is ok in cases of rape wherein the life of a fetus may be terminated because of the legal offense of another. You can try and mask the justification by saying the mother will suffer all you want.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:37 pm

Xocrates wrote:Consistent with yours, you mean?


I actually meant his, though as mine are pretty similar the same could be said of mine.


Xocrates wrote:Mine are equally supported by science and reason and are consistent.


You have yet to demonstrate that and many people have pointed out either scientific or logical flaws in your arguments thus far, so I can't agree with you on this point (shocking I know).

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests