Abortion

If you only focus with hostility upon the religious underpinnings of a point of view, to the exclusion of the merits of the ideas presented, you do disservice to these ideas.

(And if you do not believe in Good and Evil, and in spirits that work in their service, then I fear that you will always be defenseless before their ways. I do not "demonize" opposing points of view. I don't have that Power. But when I see the RABID desire for Partial Birth Abortions (D & E), to the exclusion of logic, then I know that it is a "Spirit" of thought that motivates this desire, not any carefully reasoned theory or the experience of millennia of human experience. It is unadulterated Evil. Look at who you choose to stand with, and the horrifying society they advocate...)

My last thread proposed, at least for my Nation, a (workable?) political compromise.

Maybe it isn't workable. But you have a fine mind and I think are a fine person!

Please do me the honor of debating my arugment, and not my convictions! (I only want to spare you defeat in this debate. You may well find irredeemable flaws in my States Rights based compromise. You will fail to shake my certainty in the King of Kings! Not that I think you are trying to do that... )

To restate, before it is lost again in the flowing thread, since neither side will EVER agree on a solution for EVERYONE then we can only hope to coexist by leaving such matters up to our representatives State by State. Those who could not stand living in Alabama, where all but the most extreme cases would undoubtedly be outlawed, would be free to live in New York, where such things are greeted with more enthusiasm than is seemly.


(And with that, the little hobbit (who did live in the SOUTH-farthing if you remember) looked at the old globe on his desk and pondered whether or not the Shire might not have to secede from the Union...)

For JL

"On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one."

-Biologically, the pro-lifers like to say that science says that a fetus ( foetus in french, my mistake above) and they go on quoting this book or that book. But in the end it all comes down to a battle of quotes, some for, some against.
I'll let people go in the libraries for themselves.
-Logically... huh? Well, in that case the problem is that there must be agreement on the premises, all of them, in their multiple contexts. And since this is about logic, those premises must be totally independant of religious beliefs or moral values not supported by logic... good luck on that!
-Legally. Yup. And now it's legal. Tomorrow it may not. Then next week it be again. What's your point.


"Please bear in mind that if you wish to debate any religious or spiritual issue, namely the endpoint for group x, y, or z of people, such arguments will be ignored by myself in this arena"

That's your choice.
As I said above (a few months ago!!!!), I did insist on the religious point because it was implicitely and explicitely called on by some of the Entmooters in this thread.
Since you do not want to touch this point, then one will expect you to have arguments that in no way will call for values and beliefs that are directly or indirectly based on scripture or faith in some religion. If at any time to support your argument you need a value or belief that comes from your faith in your deity or deities, then do expect from me that I will address it.

"effort at splitting hairs"

I guess if you had your way, you would call a baby the newly fecundated egg by a spermatozoid.
You yourself say that this debate is important. So shouldn't the words used be as precise as we can? I ain't splitting hair, " my boy", I think one should know when to use the word "baby" loosely, and when one should use it technically.
If you think I'm splitting hair, so I should guess you would be for using the "loose" use of "baby"? And you want to make this important debate on such loose use of language?

"Please leave the spin-doctoring at the door"

Explain yourself. Take that quote of mine again, and tell me how you consider that as an non-essential point. The use of words is important in this debate, and I think that pointing out, for example, that calling the one-cell embryo after fecundation a baby is somewhat exagerated is not inessential.
I believe I should express myself on that matter without it being called spin-doctoring (and that accusation, by itself, isn't spin-doctoring?!)

"And then, after gestation, a neonate, then a juvenile, then an adult. Words"

Yes. Words. And what biological and legal meaning these words will take is the subject of this debate. Naming things at least to describe what we are talking about is an important step. Afterwards we can, through this lenghty human history, decide individually and collectively what they mean regarding the abortion question.
So, what's your point.


"'Please remember that murder implies two things: malicious intent and illegal killing.'
Not necessarily."

Hey, at the time I also thought like you, but was unsure. So I looked in the dictionary (Webster) and found: "1.n.(law) the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought"
Then go back to my original post where you took my quote, and you'll understand why I said what I said.
But if you call THAT hair-splitting...


"'The hands are made primarily for...'
This is quite an absurd argument coming from an agnostic."

Ok, got me there... So I'll rephrase for you: "The functions of the hands is that they are primarily for...", etc...
You caught me at using too loose a language for explaining what I wanted to explain...


"'The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano?'
'shouldn't' has nothing, repeat, NOTHING, to do with this"

My quote in context: "And about your claim that sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it. The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano? The feet are made for walking, so one shouldn't dance? You see, the function of sex is reproduction, as the function of the hand and the foot is to hold,etc... and walk respectively. But their usage can be more varied, and so is for sex"

So my point was: it is not because some part of us has a specific organic function that we can't use that part of us to something other than that function.
Of course it doesn't mean we have to use it for something other.
But if someone tells me that "sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it", then my above analogy is adequate to show that that someone's logic isn't right (which doesn't mean, of course, that his conclusion isn't right).

"Action and consequence, my boy"

You're right about that. "My boy"


"'I am quite saddened that the choice to abortion is viewed as a practical luxury.'
Luxury? Perhaps not in some cases.
Necessity?"

"Perhaps not in some cases" (emphasis mine)
In "some" cases? You seam to mean by that that most cases are a practical luxury? In that case, I even more saddened.
"Necessity?" Maybe in the best of worlds alot wouldn't be necessary, and those women who chose to have an abortion in our reality wouldn't in that other utopic world. As for our reality, I leave to the woman concerned the choice to do what she wants, according to her perception of her situation.


"'Are these two cells a human being?'"

You say that logically they are a human being (whatever that means, please expand on this). Then if those two cells are forced to separate from each other, to artificially "create" true twins, so those two cells become now two human beings?
That's the point of my question.

"'For "killing" those two cells'"

It should be written "murdering". My bad.


"other issue facing the U.S. (and by extention, Canada)"

Off Topic: hehe... aren't we tired, us canadians, to be considered an extension of the US?
I guess we don't have the choice...


"You see, if these fetii are human, then their death is murder"

Hmm... Let me "split hairs" here and rephrase: "if thse fetii are human individuals, then their death is murder".
Then this phrasing is more palatable(sp?) to me and I'm almost agreeing... almost because, as I said in a post a long way above many months ago, the decision on what an human individual is isn't independent (as far as I know, feel free to correct me) from a belief system (may it be religious or not).
So you see, even if you base yourself on logic, you CAN'T escape the fact that logic needs premises, and those premises are unattainable by logic.
Logic isn't an all powerfull god that tells us everything: it is a method that need a starting point, and it can't give us that starting point.


"There are multiple ways"

...and all these ways you mention, the woman is treated virtually as a guilty person that has to prove some sort of "inocence", adding to her suffering, her shame, her discomfort.
This is especially arrogant and dispecable(sp?) in the case of a rape.


"You should know better than this."

What a powerfull argument...


================================================== ===

AND NOW THE STAGES OF LIFE.... OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!

C'mon JL!
Read this thread again!
It was clearly said in this thread, by me at least, here and here, that the point of when is the fetus or embryo a human individual protected by law is far from clear, so your melodramatic rewind into the womb is quite pointless, since anyways the question you want to address by your little play is "where does the fetus or embryo become a human being (individual) if it is not since the start?"

Of course, you could have done that, just simply asking the question.
But nooooooooo!
A little theatrical presentation, much like the "Silent Scream" effect, seems necessary for JL.
Go ahead then.
As if that little exercise hasn't been done over and over and over again... one more time won't hurt so much.




I do hope that Entmooters, pro-lifers as well as pro-choicers and those in-between, will calmly re-read all the thread.



=======================

For Gilthalion

I raise the religious issue when I see it, when it is obviously the source of the ideas.

"Demonizing" the opposite opinions means to attribute to them malefic or extremely voluntary malicious origins... which you did not hesitate to do.
To say that essentially the people with the opposite view are somewhat servant of the Demon (Spirit of malice), even if unknowingly, is more hostile than everything I said (that you qualified as hostile).
As I said in another thread, ALL my friends are of a religion or another (mostly of christian origins), and we have opposite views on many things, including the abortion issue. But NONE of them is so extreme or deluded to the point of talking of a "Spirit of malice" behind the willfull decisions that some people make: they believe ardently that their deity gave free will to its human creation, and they don't need to demonize opposing views to argue agains them: they just say that people make mistakes, and sometimes very bad mistakes and decision.
The "demonization" of the opposition is very helpfull for you, I'm sure, as it is a very effection distraction from the real issues.


====================================

I'll leave you both with that above.
I'll come back in 2 or 3 days.
Enjoy yourselves.

Juntel, no offence, and I'm just making a nuetruel observation here, but just how long does it take to you write your very *long* posts? Also, you might try saying something different in them than repeating yourself over and over again. Just a thought......

David

PS: I would post something completely disproving what you believe to be logic, but I will refrain for the time.....but only for the time.......

"A soft answer turneth away wrath."

It is certainly very handy to "demonize" or to cry "demonization" rather than to deal with the arguments at hand.

(The little hobbit lowers his eyes in shame...)

Juntel, for my part, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I do not wish for anyone to feel demonized. If your Christian friends do not acknowledge the Power of Hell, I wonder about them. I mean, what's the point, otherwise? (And the fact of spirit life, and the evil intent of some of it, does not preclude Free Will.)

As for Abortion...

If any are uncertain of when to define the beginning of "life" then it behooves them to give the benefit of that doubt to the unborn person. It does not take any particular religious faith to believe this.

When, against their own knowledge and reason and inclinations they refuse to do this, there is Something Else afoot. Especially when their support even of Partial Birth Abortions is cold eyed and unyielding. No one can argue that such things serve any Good Purpose whatsoever.

I do not raise the spectre of malicious Spirits to "demonize" anyone or their argument. Rather, it is from the self-evident circumstances of our society that I conclude such Spirits are indeed at work today as they always have been. (It also helps explain why some Hobbits choose to eat too much, drink too much, and smoke too much!)

It is a dogmatic faith (!) that insists otherwise against the long accumulated evidence and testimony of Humanity. It is certainly not Science to utterly reject such arguments without empirical evidence to the contrary.


***
Again, I apologize if my "demonizing" is a distraction, because my POINT, which I raise for the Third time and final time (I hope), is that the issue of Abortion will not be settled to anyone's satisfation.

The only political compromise, therefore, is to allow each region to do as seems best to them. To do otherwise, is Tyranny (See US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION post.)


(And before the little hobbit's own post grew again to a tremendous length, he concluded his note with a smile.)


P.S.
It took me four attempts to send this. I believe there is a malicious spirit in my machine! :lol:

"But in the end it all comes down to a battle of quotes"

You will not have it that easy against me, sir.

"Well, in that case the problem is that there must be agreement on the premises"

I will go further into this issue after my demonstration is complete.

"Yup. And now it's legal."

Ditto for the above.

"So shouldn't the words used be as precise as we can?"

You misunderstand... perhaps I should have been more clear on this and the issue of "spin-doctoring".

I'll tackle this as a block, right after... this.

"Yes. Words. And what biological and legal meaning these words will take is the subject of this debate."

Words are secondary. They take on some importance, but precision of language is a NICETY. It is NOT critical.

Now, listen carefully.

Referring to a fetus as a baby is, scientifically speaking, inaccurate. Does it carry a certain emotional weight with it which the proper terminology doesn't? Yes.

Does it change the heart of the argument? Not really, no.

(I'm jumping around a bit in this, but it's one issue if you think about it.)

Now, you've spoken multiple times to alleged "demonization", "tactical choice of words" (this one could be taken multiple ways - if I'm interpreting it incorrectly, please let me know), and giving "abortion a more cruel face than it should".

Essentially, you're arguing that the pro-life side is spin-doctoring through word selection.

Why I'm asking you to cease this argument is because it is, quite simply, fruitless. Word choice for emotional impact can be useful or devious (depending on which side you're on), but emotional baggage on words really doesn't matter in the long run. Sure, maybe it'll sway votes, but that baggage cannot change facts.

I can understand how you can object to the use of the word "baby" in reference to a human fetus, and I will agree that the term is not entirely accurate for the purpose with which it was used. BUT...

In the context in which it was used, you could change every instance of the word "baby" to "fetus" and the meaning stays essentially intact. Is there some emotional baggage dropped? Does it lack the visceral impact of the image of dying babies? Yes.

But it still says pretty much the same thing.

"And you want to make this important debate on such loose use of language?"

Do I want to? No.
Will I tolerate it? Yes.

This is not just a word game.

"I believe I should express myself on that matter without it being called spin-doctoring"

Yes, I definitely should have been clearer. I know it's lots of fun to point out emotionally-loaded words and all, but it's pointless. I wasn't accusing you of spin-doctoring (or intending to, anyways), but of focusing on it.

"So I looked in the dictionary (Webster) and found: "1.n.(law) the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought""

You have a definition that includes it. I have one that does not.

If you wish to deal with the accuracy of these definitions, very well. Do get back to me on this.

"it is not because some part of us has a specific organic function that we can't use that part of us to something other than that function."

Which is not relevant to his point. Let's look at his argument a bit more closely, shall we?

"Sex is the process of reproducing, so people who do not want to reproduce, should not do it."

Now, let's add in a given. If the mother, down the line, considers an abortion, it's fairly safe to assume that reproduction in this case was a negative.

See if you can follow this...

"If you do not wish to incur a negative effect (reproducing, third-degree burns) of an action, you should not engage in the prerequisite action (sex, lighting one's body on fire)."

Logically equivalent.

"You seam to mean by that that most cases are a practical luxury?"

Well, cases that involve the life of the mother, rape, incest, or health of the baby only make up seven percent of all of the 38 million-odd legal abortions that have took place in the U.S....

I suppose whether the other 93 percent were a luxury depends on what you consider to be "essential". What I refer to as the "some cases" would be that seven percent. Your opinions may differ.

"Off Topic: hehe... aren't we tired, us canadians, to be considered an extension of the US? I guess we don't have the choice..."

The way our government follows theirs around scares me.

"You say that logically they are a human being (whatever that means, please expand on this)."

That's not quite what I said, but don't worry, I will expand on it.

"the woman is treated virtually as a guilty person"

She's not treated as someone who is to blame. AFAIC, they'd have to do less than what is required to press charges against those who hurt her.

"'You should know better than this.'

What a powerfull argument..."

Well, I honestly thought you had learned your lesson on the Creation Science thread... must it really be rehashed here?

Assuming that religion is a part of people's arguments doesn't seem to pay off very well for you.

"your melodramatic rewind into the womb is quite pointless"

If it was pointless, I would not be doing it. You shall see... you shall see.

Emotions are good in politics, but I'm not running for office.

"I'll come back in 2 or 3 days."

I should be finished with you by then.

Oh no... not again...
Not the "I-quote-one-word-you-say-to-try-make-you-look-like-an-idiot-but-i-totally-forget-about-the-subjet" thing!

Anyway... as you all look like to be high on speed and posted like crazy, I'll finish reading the thread before adding my comments...

"If I were to kill you, your brain waves would stop. You would still be human after your death. A dead human, but a human nonetheless."

Well... I believe wou'll never kill me anyway. The fact is that a "dead human" once thought (some may argue on this point) And once had brain activity. Fetus (sorry for using foetus first time, as Juntel said, in french it's spelled like that. common mistake, like language & langage)

"Besides, brain waves from the fetus are detectable on an EEG (I think that's the proper abbreviation) at six weeks, whereas abortions are legal until the instant of birth - this seems to be defined by the head exiting the vagina, making D&X abortions "legal"."

So, for me, legal abortion would be until the fetus is 6 weeks old.

But I do agree with a state-by-state compromise like Gil said. But, here in Canada, we all know such a compromise in impossible. But I think that there would'nt be so much divergence of opinion in that matter. I don't mean we'd all be happy but that we'd all accept it in a not long term.

Now, the big point. You once hurt my feeling with your sentence by sentences type of post. Here's the conversation back then:

Shan: "Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas"

JL: You have pillars that support your arguments. Like it or not, I'm going to demolish those pillars. Will I split hairs? Not always.

And now, YOU don't want to use a correct, appropriate language? What's up with you? Saying something with it pleases you and backing when it no longers? This type of attitude makes me sick. No, in fact it makes me mad.

==========

No have fun. Take some of my sentences, out of context, and split hairs if you want. I don't care. About you, about what you think, about what you think of me.

You'll almost never hear any french laugh when an english stumble trying to speak french. But you'll gladly make fun of my or anyone's little mistake. We once talked about how our two people were different. That's part of it. We know the meaning of "respect" (No offense IP)

(Shan calms down and takes a big breath.)

"Now, the big point. You once hurt my feeling with your sentence by sentences type of post."

"And now, YOU don't want to use a correct, appropriate language?"

"Saying something with it pleases you and backing when it no longers?"

Take a careful look at what I wrote. More specifically, what I didn't.

I did not refer to the fetus (or foetus... technically, it is acceptable. My apologies.) as a baby. Someone else did... I believe it was dmaul97. Juntel correctly called attention to the fact that what he was referring to as a baby was not, by the strictest definition. I acknowledged this, but argued that replacement of the inaccurate term - "baby" - with the term which he was clearly referring to - "f(o)etus" - did not cause a major change in the sentence's meaning.

Do you want proof? Here you go.

1) dmaul97: "People say that babies in the womb are not humans, but they are simply wrong."

2) juntel: "Firstly, let me point out you misuse of the word "baby"."

3) Me: "As far as this effort at splitting hairs goes, it seems that you are in the right, technically speaking."

4) juntel: "I think one should know when to use the word "baby" loosely, and when one should use it technically."

5) Me: "In the context in which it was used, you could change every instance of the word "baby" to "fetus" and the meaning stays essentially intact."

Those are all direct quotes, in linear order.

Now, as far as what you quoted...

You: "Let's stop arguing about how I word my ideas"

Me: "You have pillars that support your arguments. Like it or not, I'm going to demolish those pillars. Will I split hairs? Not always."

You: (This is where the misunderstanding starts.) "That about why I don't want you to destroy my "pillars", because they are weak."

Me: (Trying to explain what I meant by "pillars") "If you take some care in choosing your words, your "pillars" won't be weakened by them"

"However, if the ideas behind the words are weak... then they need to be demolished."

In a nutshell, the "pillars" which I was referring to were the IDEAS, not the words. That should have been made clear to you, and if it was not, I sincerely apologize.

"But you'll gladly make fun of my or anyone's little mistake."

When someone makes a mistake in language, I generally try to give them an opportunity to clarify or correct.

If the mistake, however, was in the underlying idea, I don't owe them that.

Did I poke fun at your "little mistake"(s)? Please cite an example - one is all I need to be remorseful.

And with that, the little hobbit decided that he was quite right to think that there would never be a solution and determined not to provoke anyone else himself. And so he decides to follow juntel and leave the thread for a while.

Well.. for me pillars in sentences are words wich you build the sentence with. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And, I now believe everything woth saying has been said in this thread.

I'm not going to gripe, but suffice it to say I'm going to be really freakin' busy.

Will I ever have a chance to finish my "melodramatic" demonstration? Let's hope so.

Adios.

There are no time constraints (to " finish with me")

This thread was revived from many months of hibernation anyway.

I am just curious what you "experts" think would happen if abortion was made illegal? What would happen to welfare or the unwanted babies? Someone (JL i think) mentioned that there are something like 38 million legal abortions that have taken place in the US, what if abortion was illegal and there were 38 million unwanted babies in the US.....along with the already numerous unwanted babies?? Do you think that our welfare system could handle that? Someone has to cloth, feed and diaper those babies. Do you think that a 15 year old or a 20 something unwed mother is going to be able to afford that? You would say that they could be put up for adoption, but there are already thousands of children waiting for adoption.

Let's go back to the issue of sex for a moment and it's "purpose". Look at China. They have such a huge population that they can no longer handle what people they have so they made it illegal to have more than one child. Why do you think that this is so? You would think that if they knew that having more than one child was against the law, they would stop having sex. (Actually, I am not sure why they just don't make women have their tubes tied, or the men have vasectomies....maybe be they do??) JL, you think that the only reason to have sex is to procreate....then why do the Chinese still have sex?? They aren't allowed to have any more children. Could it be that sex is just a part of the human animal?

Try looking at it another way. I didn't meet my husband until I was 26, and didn't marry him until I was 31. Would you have me wait to have sex with him until I was married? Say we don't want to have children....which we don't....are you suggesting that we NEVER have sex??!!! And since that is completely impractical, what happens if something goes amiss and I become pregnant? Would I get an abortion? Hard to say really what I would do in that situation, but WE sure would like to make that decision ourselves!

If the government ever does get away with making abortion illegal, there better be a fool proof form of birth control out there besides abstinence. Anything less is simply oppressive!

well, people can still eat poutine until they get married...

Seriously, I was growing quite concerned that so few women got involved in this thread (although it's true that this board has more male members, I think...)
Makes me grow more conscious that the society we live in (western civilisation) has grown with male-dominated/-oriented values and religions, and that fair treatment of women is quite recent relatively speaking. And that may explain why men still seem to be the ones that are the more volubile on the subject.

I do not mean that a pro-choice society would be more fair for the treatment of women; I just mean that the solution is still very much skewed in our societies by male domination of the political arena. There would probably be fewer abortions in a society where women would have more input into what our society should be economically. After all, abortion isn't an end in itself (I hope people knew that).

Btw, I do not mean that women would be pro-choice (Elanor, I think, is pro-life).

I agree with Gilthalion that people may never come to agree on that situation, but I disagree at the level at which the decision is to be made: I think it should be at the individual level, meaning here the pregnant woman, and not at the state/provincial level.

The reason I think it must be made at the state/provincial level is because I think it is wrong, and do not wish to live in a society where such practices are tolerated/condoned/advocated. There are many others that feel the same. I personally make exception for medical emergency and rape/incest, but this should still be a last, very last resort even so.

If I cannot convince others to turn away from support, implicit or explicit, for the practice, then I ask for the freedom not to have their morality forced down my throat with all of the power of Government behind it. Let me live in peace with folks who believe as I do.

A Civil War was fought in this nation over Slavery (among many other issues). I hope that another is not fought over Abortion (among many other issues). It's been a long time since people were so divided.


EDIT: I wanted to revise my remarks before someone was upset, but I may have been too late. They are revised now.

Sorry to anyone who was subjected to the rant I went on this morning. There was no call for me to fly off the handle the way I did, and I apologize. I'm not usually this unreasonable. I won't be posting any further on this thread.

I would like to apologise to everyone for my own participation on this thread. It has nothing to do with the appreciation we all have for Tolkien's works and contributes nothing to understanding and good will.

I humbly recommend that this thread be stricken from the Entmoot and the topic be banished from the Entmoot.

I should have stood up and applauded you, I am sorry. Your post reflected my exact sentiments. I too was a little more than peeved about the promiscuous statement made by Gil. I understand your reaction though, and all who read this thread should understand it. For me it is frightning to think about a law being passed that excludes men, yet is mostly in the hands of men. I am not a cold hearted person, unfeeling, nor a monster. But I cannot be in favor of something that would not give me a choice over my own body.

There are no easy answers, but when you turn the Natural Order on its head, separating SEX and PROCREATION, you make the love of a man and woman into an intimate entertainment, rather than an act of loving creation.

Are you saying that the only time you and your wife make love is in an attemp to conceive? What about women who have had their tubes tied? Does this mean that she and her partner are only having sex at that point for entertainment, that there isn't any love involved because there is no longer any way that she can create life? And what of the women that are beyond child bearing years? Should they no longer have sex because there can no longer be any creation of life?

Actually, the Mrs did have her tubes tied. And so we can't have children. That might be part of why I get so emotional about the subject. But in the fading world I come from, sex is reserved for the intimacy and responsibility of marriage, and some (not me) WOULD say that even then, only for procreation.

It would be a civilization and culture very strange to us if it ever existed, but it won't.

And I again apologise for my long diatribes.

Gilthalion said: "It has nothing to do with the appreciation we all have for Tolkien's works and contributes nothing to understanding and good will."

Very wise and I thank you. This is the very reason I don't want this discussed to begin with (way back at the top of the thread). Enough said, lay it to rest.