The Unprogressive Progressive

[Jennifer123]

In that case you should support the life-of-the-mother exception. Since you don’t, you are placing the potential life of the child ahead of the life of the mother. What you want for both the woman and child doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t put your money and your deeds where your mouth is. You’re exploiting them both to stroke your own conscience.

Pretty judgemental statement, you have no idea what I have or haven’t done for the lives of mothers and their children.

(BTW - studies show that those with more conservative tendencies consistantly give more of their money and resources to charities, regardless of income level, than do their more liberal counterparts. So I wouldn’t presume that we don’t support these women because you would be wrong.)

As for as exploiting them to “stroke” our consciences, I don’t have to stroke my conscience because mine is clean, I don’t advocate infanticide.

IMHO to allow mothers to be exploited by the likes of Playboy magazine (one of the largest funders Planned Parenthood) so that they can have “choice”(s) that are ultimately self-serving is false compassion.

I sense a bit of frustration with your post and I can understand but you are advocating a position that is completely untenable and unfortunately are paying the price.

 

[wabrams]

Very true, but having MD come after your name gives you a much better idea than anyone else of how the human body works and what is and isn’t likely to harm or destroy it. They make mistakes just like the rest of us, but the simple fact that they went through medschool and have however many years of field experience should be enough to inspire at least a little trust in their judgment.

I’d be a lot more curious about there experiences with women in such circumstances who took the chance to have the child anyway and what the outcome was versus what a textbook said or being taught to regurgitate “get an abortion.”

 

[Riley259]

Not always.

There’s no thinking clearly about this issue, no matter your opinion on it. It’s base and visceral, and let’s face it, universally physically unappealing – much like the point of childbirth.

The fetus is potentially human. The mother is undeniably human. She is capable of making decisions and exercising her free will, for right or wrong; the fetus is not. Would you argue that a five-year-old, since it is undeniably alive, human, and conscious should have full responsibility for deciding the path of his or her entire life?

If we lived in utopia, I’d agree with you. Sadly, we don’t, or at least not all of us – sometimes we have to decide between two ills. Deserves has nothing to do with it.

Proto-human. The human in this question, the mother, is more valuable.

Once the child is born, the mother is no longer in direct danger from the presence of the fetus. That’s why I draw the line where I do. Nobody’s advocating late-term abortion – in fact, nobody’s advocating having them at all! I’d much rather see a world in which nobody felt them necessary.

Another point is, who’s going to pay for that life support? Considering the demographics of women who have abortions, many of them wouldn’t be able to afford it. And most of those who are so up in arms about abortion either won’t or can’t.

Very aware.

There doesn’t have to be a ‘why’ for prematurity. It just happens sometimes, and can spring from a combination of factors. Some women just don’t carry long, and many are prone to miscarriage, which is also dangerous to their survival (blood loss, toxic shock, etc, etc) and their ability to conceive and bear later.

We don’t owe the fetus anything. We owe the mother haven and help as another human being. That sentiment stands larger than life right in the middle of our largest port: Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. To deny anyone shelter is uncharitable, unchristian, and unamerican. And here we don’t even enforce child support on the fathers very well at all.

It is pornographic. It’s not art, and it’s intended to arouse a visceral emotional response. That’s the very definition of pornography. It’s the same basic idea as anti-surgery protestors (perhaps extreme Christian Scientists) picketing outside a cardiovascular unit with gigantic images of a torn-open human torso. It’s disgusting, immature, and an embarrassment for the rest of us. It also happens to be against forum rules.

Of course it’s not art. It’s real pictures of preborn human beings being torn limb from limb and being burned severely by a saline solution. It’s just simply the truth of what our culture does to innocent human beings. I’d surmize that the reason you have such a visceral reaction is because deep-down you do recognize the horror of such actions and you’d rather not see the consequences of what you so obviously endorse…these pictures are meant to change people with hardened hearts - people like you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Some few years ago, a young girl in New Jersey, attending her High School Prom, gave birth to a baby in the ladies room, and threw the baby in the trash. She was arrested for that.

But suppose she had had the presence of mind to take her nail scissors and jab them through the soft spot when the baby’s head crowned – then expelled the little corpse? That is, performed a partial-birth abortion.

Would anyone here say that would make her blameless?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

I’d rather debate than split hairs endlessly. Labor means the child is on its way out and the direct physical dependence on the mother is essentially over, and it’s either alive and viable or a stillbirth/miscarriage. End of question.

And I do not condone that.

There’s no way to apply an entire philosophical system universally to pregnancy beyond basic physical truths (viability, inside/outside, etc). Each pregnancy and each mother is unique; I’ve said this time and time again.

Contrivance? My stance on the humanity of a fetus vs. that of an infant is less contrived than yours, which states that God implants a soul in the fetus the moment sperm touches egg (or some time thereabouts). It’s your belief and your faith and that’s fine, but don’t try to tell me unmeasurable supernatural events aren’t a philosophical contrivance.

Singer himself has an incredibly weak position. Utilitarianism is all well and good on the chalkboard, but as soon as you hit the street it’s worthless.

 

[Mirdath]

Pretty judgemental statement, you have no idea what I have or haven’t done for the lives of mothers and their children.

I don’t need to have an idea. If women are still choosing to abort instead of come to you, you haven’t cared for them or their children enough.

I sense a bit of frustration with your post and I can understand but you are advocating a position that is completely untenable and unfortunately are paying the price.

I’ve yet to be convinced of its untenability. The inability of anyone in this thread to seriously debate instead of rant at me, yes, is a little frustrating.

Of course it’s not art. It’s real pictures of preborn human beings being torn limb from limb and being burned severely by a saline solution. It’s just simply the truth of what our culture does to innocent human beings. I’d surmize that the reason you have such a visceral reaction is because deep-down you do recognize the horror of such actions and you’d rather not see the consequences of what you so obviously endorse…these pictures are meant to change people with hardened hearts - people like you.

Oh dear, if only you could see what I’ve seen with these eyes, you’d realize those pictures are pretty small potatoes for shock value. I don’t have to be horrified by something to prefer it somewhere other than up on my wall.

Those pictures are not meant to soften any hardened hearts and they won’t do that. They are meant to disturb and scare people who are already in a terrifying enough situation into doing as you say. If people saw what it looked like to get their wisdom teeth extracted, I’ve no doubt that operation would rapidly drop in frequency.

The pictures are unpleasant, yes, but from the responses in this thread it’s pretty obvious most posters here have absolutely no idea or experience with the lives of poor people, particularly women and children – the demographic that most often aborts – are like. You’d be even more disturbed, scarred, and horrified by a single week of that life than by uncounted thousands of those pictures.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t need to have an idea. If women are still choosing to abort instead of come to you, you haven’t cared for them or their children enough.

I’ve yet to be convinced of its untenability. The inability of anyone in this thread to seriously debate instead of rant at me, yes, is a little frustrating.

Oh dear, if only you could see what I’ve seen with these eyes, you’d realize those pictures are pretty small potatoes for shock value. I don’t have to be horrified by something to prefer it somewhere other than up on my wall.

Those pictures are not meant to soften any hardened hearts and they won’t do that. They are meant to disturb and scare people who are already in a terrifying enough situation into doing as you say. If people saw what it looked like to get their wisdom teeth extracted, I’ve no doubt that operation would rapidly drop in frequency.

The pictures are unpleasant, yes, but from the responses in this thread it’s pretty obvious most posters here have absolutely no idea or experience with the lives of poor people, particularly women and children – the demographic that most often aborts – are like. You’d be even more disturbed, scarred, and horrified by a single week of that life than by uncounted thousands of those pictures.

Shame on you for making such a phoney, self-serving, holier-that-thou argument.

From your responses in this thread it’s pretty obvious you have absolutely no idea or experience with the lives of poor people, particularly men – the demographic that most often kills their spouses – are like. You’d be even more disturbed, scarred, and horrified by a single week of that life than by uncounted thousands of those pictures

 

[Jennifer123]

The pictures are unpleasant, yes, but from the responses in this thread it’s pretty obvious most posters here have absolutely no idea or experience with the lives of poor people, particularly women and children – the demographic that most often aborts – are like. You’d be even more disturbed, scarred, and horrified by a single week of that life than by uncounted thousands of those pictures.

Spare me. This kind of self-righteous, pretentious blabber may impress your friends, but it doesn’t hold water with me.

How do you know that I myself haven’t experienced the kind of life you presume I know nothing about? How do you know that sexual exploitation, rape and adoption hasn’t been experienced in my family? You are ridiculous.

But you presume to scare me and other women experiencing this kind of trauma by telling me all sorts of terrible things will happen to my life if I dare bring my baby to term while withholding imformation that gives me other options? Some choice.

But this is part and parcel with liberals these days. Don’t tell me the truth, just tells me what makes YOU feel good, what makes YOU feel righteous, what DOESN’T make YOU feel helpless.

Good luck to you. You’ve really struck a nerve with your judgemental and self-righteous attitude, but I guess I should have known. Every liberal I’ve ever known plays the same games. Yes, I know what I’m speaking about, I was a pro-choice, environmental activist/political organizer. And I thought just like you. Thank God I’m different now. I’m looking at myself in the mirror had God not touched my heart.

 

[Mirdath]

Vern, if all you can do is parrot me in an attempt to mock, you’re not worth arguing with. Come up with your own words and please, make them make sense – not only is that last one patently nonsensical, the idea you seem to have had behind it is far less true than you believe.

Jennifer123:

How do you know that I myself haven’t experienced the kind of life you presume I know nothing about? How do you know that sexual exploitation, rape and adoption hasn’t been experienced in my family? You are ridiculous.

I can’t know – but I can guess, and generally I’m pretty good at that. Nobody has responded to this thread in a way that shows compassion through true sympathy and commiseration; instead, they gaze down at the afflicted from their moral high horses and toss pity, condescension, and two-faced offers of help-if-you-accept-our-religion like Mardi Gras beads. Spare me.

But you presume to scare me and other women experiencing this kind of trauma by telling me all sorts of terrible things will happen to my life if I dare bring my baby to term while withholding imformation that gives me other options? Some choice.

Just as you feel it essential to shout what kinds of horrible things will go wrong if one aborts, I feel it necessary to provide information – gently – about what can go wrong in other situations. I’ve never hidden the truth that things can go wrong in abortions; they do. But they also go even more horribly wrong in childbirth, a fact that you seem to prefer to keep quiet.

But this is part and parcel with liberals these days. Don’t tell me the truth, just tells me what makes YOU feel good, what makes YOU feel righteous, what DOESN’T make YOU feel helpless.

The crueler aspects of biology don’t make anyone feel good or righteous; we are all helpless before them. Do you imagine the spider enjoys being eaten by his mate, or thinks ‘at last, to heaven!’? Or that prey facing down a predator feels courage and confidence, or looks forward to martyrdom? We are not so different from these animals – except we can speak and build and try to be better than we are. Yet physically, we’re still just animals, prey in the forest – and there, but for the grace of God or a high tax bracket, go we all.

Good luck to you. You’ve really struck a nerve with your judgemental and self-righteous attitude, but I guess I should have known. Every liberal I’ve ever known plays the same games. Yes, I know what I’m speaking about, I was a pro-choice, environmental activist/political organizer. And I thought just like you. Thank God I’m different now. I’m looking at myself in the mirror had God not touched my heart.

Judgmental? I offer one point of view in this thread and I am called Hitler, I am told I make people sick, I’m told I’m heartless, soulless, and repulsive. You call me self-righteous and ridiculous. Who’s judging here? And when, according to your faith, did that become your job and not God’s? If such a being exists, I will one day stand before him on my own, and no matter the outcome, that day I will give thanks it is that being sitting in judgment upon me and not you.

Throughout this thread, I’ve repeatedly advocated not holding every woman and every pregnancy to the same standard, judging them without a thought for their uniqueness, applying an unworkable general standard. When is your judging going to stop?

 

[Jennifer123]

When is your judging going to stop?

You’ve got to be kidding. Throughout this thread you have been one to judge our circumstances as if everyone disagreeing with you lives in some ivory tower where nothing ill has been felt. And we’ve been judgemental?

Sorry, but you know less than I thought, and you’ve judged wrong, dead wrong. On behalf of the women in my life that have been touched by these tragedies (including myself) I recuse myself from this discussion. It’s demeaning to their struggles.

Truth is love. I am sorry you apparently haven’t felt that here, but it is not my job to make you feel good about the choices you have made. My job is to preach truth, abortion is murder. I’m sorry you don’t feel good about that.

 

[estesbob]

The pictures are unpleasant, yes, but from the responses in this thread it’s pretty obvious most posters here have absolutely no idea or experience with the lives of poor people, particularly women and children – the demographic that most often aborts – are like. You’d be even more disturbed, scarred, and horrified by a single week of that life than by uncounted thousands of those pictures.

And you base the above on what? I cousel poor pregnant women on a regualr basis. most of them would be outraged at your condescending attitude that their poverty makes them unfit to be a Mother.

 

[Mirdath]

And you base the above on what? I cousel poor pregnant women on a regualr basis. most of them would be outraged at your condescending attitude that their poverty makes them unfit to be a Mother.

Poverty does not make them unfit; it often makes them unable – which would be a very large part of why that set of people is that which most often aborts. But still, there are exceptions to every rule, something I’ve been trying to point out here.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

I’d rather debate than split hairs endlessly. Labor means the child is on its way out and the direct physical dependence on the mother is essentially over, and it’s either alive and viable or a stillbirth/miscarriage. End of question.

*And yet, you didn’t answer the question. What about partial birth abortion? *
*Splitting hairs? Of course, that’s debate. Debate is the clarification and defining of terms and examining the logic of arguments. *
GG:

The humanity of the delivered child is no longer commonly accepted and under increasing attack in the West. There’s infanticide in the Netherlands and as I said, a leading bioethicist in the US support infanticide.

Mirdath:

And I do not condone that.

*Never said you did, just pointing out that the humanity of the infant is no longer a universally agreed to proposition and must be defended. *

There’s no way to apply an entire philosophical system universally to pregnancy beyond basic physical truths (viability, inside/outside, etc). Each pregnancy and each mother is unique; I’ve said this time and time again.

I don’t know why some absolutes wouldn’t govern pregnancy any less than any other human activity. Each infant is different and unique, yet you oppose infanticide.
Each human pregnancy is unique but every pregnancy shares some commonality or else we couldn’t call it “pregnancy.”

Mirdath:

Contrivance? My stance on the humanity of a fetus vs. that of an infant is less contrived than yours, which states that God implants a soul in the fetus the moment sperm touches egg (or some time thereabouts). It’s your belief and your faith and that’s fine, but don’t try to tell me unmeasurable supernatural events aren’t a philosophical contrivance.

By contrived, I mean that you have come up with a stance that allows you to support abortion for the nine months of pregnancy and not slide into infanticide. Similarly, Hatch uses his outside, location stance to justify his support for ESCR with-out sliding into abortion. I you assume that if you believe that I have adopted the position of the Catholic Church then my position can’t be contrived (my own creation). I have my pet contrivances which I haven’t shared on this thread.

Mirdath:

Singer himself has an incredibly weak position. Utilitarianism is all well and good on the chalkboard, but as soon as you hit the street it’s worthless.

**And you’ve have been unable to make one argument against his logic. The reason I started this thread was that I wondered if pro-choicers have noticed a shift in the some of the arguments for abortion. I think my friend’s agnosticism about life is no challenge to folks like Singer. I think that his agnosticism side lines him in the discussion about infanticide. Now I’m sure he would loudly assert his opposition to infanticide but having relegated human worth to a merely religious question stops any thought on his part. Ultimately, I think that Singer is more problematic for the pro-choice side than the pro-life side. Some pro-choicers like Dan Boorstien recognizes the problem. He has tried to stake a middle ground but I don’t think that it would be acceptable to either side. *

Anyway, I’ve got an article to write for an Internet mag. You may have the last word.
*

 

[Jennifer123]

Poverty does not make them unfit; it often makes them unable – which would be a very large part of why that set of people is that which most often aborts. But still, there are exceptions to every rule, something I’ve been trying to point out here.

Eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor. It is no accident that most abortion clinics are in poor, “ethnic” areas. Nothing new under the sun, this tall tale has been told since the 19th century with the beginning of the eugenics movement, when racial theories about the “unfitness” of poor people to be parents were first proposed.

The poor and ethnic minorities still complain about lack of resources but instead of focusing on solutions, you and your buddies tell them they have no choice but to abort or else their lives be ruined.

Same racism, just wrapped in different paper. We’re too “enlightened” these days to force sterilization, we’ll just control the poor by giving them “choice”. Sanger lives!

 

[Mirdath]

And yet, you didn’t answer the question. What about partial birth abortion?

Induced labor with the fetus alive, intact, and coming out? Yeah, no go.

I don’t know why some absolutes wouldn’t govern pregnancy any less than any other human activity. Each infant is different and unique, yet you oppose infanticide.

Pregnancy is over by that point.

Each human pregnancy is unique but every pregnancy shares some commonality or else we couldn’t call it “pregnancy.”

Yes, on the base physical level. Beyond that, everyone reacts differrently and thinks differently – which is why moral and philosophical generalizations don’t work out.

By contrived, I mean that you have come up with a stance that allows you to support abortion for the nine months of pregnancy and not slide into infanticide. Similarly, Hatch uses his outside, location stance to justify his support for ESCR with-out sliding into abortion. I you assume that if you believe that I have adopted the position of the Catholic Church then my position can’t be contrived (my own creation). I have my pet contrivances which I haven’t shared on this thread.

Adopting someone else’s position, then, merely means adopting someone else’s contrivances. As I recall, Jesus didn’t have anything to say specifically about abortion, so the Church’s position was created by humans.

And you’ve have been unable to make one argument against his logic. The reason I started this thread was that I wondered if pro-choicers have noticed a shift in the some of the arguments for abortion. I think my friend’s agnosticism about life is no challenge to folks like Singer. I think that his agnosticism side lines him in the discussion about infanticide. Now I’m sure he would loudly assert his opposition to infanticide but having relegated human worth to a merely religious question stops any thought on his part. Ultimately, I think that Singer is more problematic for the pro-choice side than the pro-life side. Some pro-choicers like Dan Boorstien recognizes the problem. He has tried to stake a middle ground but I don’t think that it would be acceptable to either side.

Wait, why do I have to argue against Singer? Isn’t he on my side with regard to abortion? Post-natal infanticide isn’t the subject of this thread.

Jennifer123:

Eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor. It is no accident that most abortion clinics are in poor, “ethnic” areas. Nothing new under the sun, this tall tale has been told since the 19th century with the beginning of the eugenics movement, when racial theories about the “unfitness” of poor people to be parents were first proposed.

Were that the goal, why not take the Dead Kennedys at face value and bomb every American inner city? It’d be quicker and more efficient. Hasn’t even been seriously proposed yet, and I do not expect it will – and if it is, see you in the center of the ghetto, I’ll be waiting for atomic sunrise.

The poor and ethnic minorities still complain about lack of resources but instead of focusing on solutions, you and your buddies tell them they have no choice but to abort or else their lives be ruined.

Providing an option that could help their lives is telling them they have no choice? Where’d you get that idea from anything I’ve said? I’m not trying to force anyone to abort – I want the option to remain there legally and safely.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Throughout this thread, I’ve repeatedly advocated not holding every woman and every pregnancy to the same standard, judging them without a thought for their uniqueness, applying an unworkable general standard. When is your judging going to stop?

You won’t grant the most innocent and helpless amongst us the basic right to life and you complain you’re not getting respect?

You’re getting as much respect as you’re entitled to.

 

[fix]

Providing an option that could help their lives is telling them they have no choice? Where’d you get that idea from anything I’ve said? I’m not trying to force anyone to abort – I want the option to remain there legally and safely.

Any option that includes doing serious evil is no real option. Should we have an option to commit arson or slavery enshrined in the law?