Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 13 of 26
Murder.
I think sometimes all ethics really amount to is a big fat ego trip for the people who call themselves ethical. Better than you. Better than me. No, we're better than them! And here's why...bow down to my great ethical self, you are ethically lowly and bad.
Ethics is often simply perfectionism unevenly applied. You must be responsible and appropriate and conform to my idea of decency (pay no attention to the man behind the moral condemnation).
People, for some reason I've yet to fathom, enjoy punishing other people. It seems to work for them, satisfy some itch. Doesn't seem to matter to them that it's plain crazy. Certainly doesn't repair any damage done. Certainly doesn't bring any dead people back to life. Yeah, two wrongs make a right, that's the ticket! More dead people, that's what the world needs!
Murder. Hey, we're all fans of a show where our favorite character murders a good many people. Inneresting thing about Mal is, he don't go in for punishment, really. Not saying he don't get urges or that he don't get a bit of unhealthy satisfaction from settling things thataway. But the man don't kill to punish. He kills because the person in question represents a direct threat to the lives of the people he loves. He kills folks that pose a danger to himself and his crew. He murders people, and yet, we like him. Some of us admire him.
So here we are talking about what the State oughta be able to tell people they can and cannot do. No, no, no, we're talking about ethics; not what the State gets to do, but what people at large should do. Get your hammers out boys, it's time to tell others what they should do! 
"Innocent life!" we cry, thinking to silence all opposition. We don't kill innocent life! Yeah, but we do, our representatives overseas have been doing it for several years now, very publicly, calling it legal and necessary, "clear and present danger" type stuff--totally legit. "Oh come now, my friend," you interject, "we do not target such unfortunates, they are merely a regretable but acceptable consequence of war; without killing innocents, we could not prevail!"
So anyway, I hope you'll pardon the creative writing here, but this conversation needs some serious shaking up. God, it's dreary!
Me, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, very-very early-early stage abortion. It was a horrible experience for both of us (her in particular, though). Kinda spelled the beginning of the end of our romance (She's now married and has a beautiful little baby girl named Betty, I'm happy to report). Now, the two of us were/are spiritualists, psychics, see-ers of dead people, etc. So, for us there's no wiggle room, there was a soul incarnating inside her. She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.
But metaphysics aside, what we're talking about here, is whether or not my ex should have seen jail time and maybe me as well. Or whether the folks over at Planned Parenthood should have been arrested on murder charges.
I don't feel that way. If I'd come home and found my girlfriend had shot her roommate dead for playing Ani DiFranco all day long, I think it would be a very different situation.
Don't you?
I mean, forget your perfectionism and all the logic and math that's got you're heart tied up in knots--don't you think murdering a 5 week old fetus and murdering a roommate are two very different things and require very different reactions from friends and lovers and the State?
When we think of a murderer, we think of a threat. Someone who solves one problem by murdering someone else, we reason, might murder again given the chance. We figure we better do something about the murderer, can't just let 'em run loose.
But my ex, ain't a threat to nobody. And wasn't. And she had her baby, after all. Might be ethical to contractually obligate a woman who's had an abortion to eventually make up for it by bringing a baby to term. Perhaps she has an o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Finn- have you come up with answers to my questions?
Flash back just a few short posts. It went like this:
Quote:Which of course left me with a few questions, such as...
Quote: If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete then you’ve won.-Finn
Yes, I can show you fetuses that become something other than human when fully developed. The fetuses that become fully developed placentas, for example. They ARE "fully developed". They're not about to go any farther. They just didn't develop into a human. So, I win!-Signy
All human fetuses are human- Finn
You reduce it to: A human is human. -Signy
I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.- Finn
1) So, what about flushing a placenta down the toilet? I wouldn't get bent out of shape- would you?
Yes????
No????
In your mind you have an idea of what "human" means. An ideal. YOUR ideal. But what happens when reality wanders away from your ideal? HOW far away from your ideal will you allow the definition of "human" to stretch?
2) You use the phrase fully developed and complete tho that's not what you really mean. Do you want me to TELL you what you mean? It is a source of confusion for you. There is a phrase that can can substitute that will make veryhting clear.
3) To extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... that implies that you will spend a life to save a life. But what about war? Does this mean that wars are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?
4) And in a related fashion, how do you feel about the death penalty?
You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Certainly no worse than your assertion that Pro-Choice is baby murder and that people have to dehumanise the cell bundle in order to baby murder with a clean conscience.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?
Just keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a baby murdering Nazi, you're eloquently proving that you're capable of intelligent mature debate by doing that.
Hell the more you call people baby murders, the more you single yourself out as being on the moderate side of the debate, no what I'm saying.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
The most egregious example I can think of is when I hear social conservatives pledge to outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, or incest. Why? If it's an innocent life, the method of its conception does not change that. A child born of rape or incest is just as innocent as a child born of love. Sin is not sexually transmitted, nor is it passed down from mother to child (maybe with Catholics).
Ah, but you're forgetting that in the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't enjoy herself. Therefore she can be freed of the punishment of pregnancy.
And let's face it--that's what the real agenda of the "pro-life" side is. Whether someone enjoyed F***ing. Dress it up in the morality of murder as they like, the true concern of the religious right is to make sure that people who enjoy sex in any but the most narrowly approved circumstances are ostracized and punished.
Perhaps I'll log back in later to debate the (very, very) separate issue of at what point in embryonic/fetal development the cell cluster should be considered legally human, but let's get real. Even if it could be proved tomorrow that the Hindus are right, and the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath, the Evangelicals would still oppose abortion, because the important thing is to punish the sinners.
I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My commitment to human life, huh? So my answers to your questions are going to decide, in your mind, my “commitment to human life?” Why do you think I should defend my commitment to human life to you?
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
HK. I am sorry for you and the ex. But glad she has a baby now.
And well said by the way.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To answer that question, people really have to ask when does life first begin. Some people believe life begins in the 3rd month. Some people aren't sure about it. I'm unsure about it therefore I don't agree with everday abortion. I think abortion should be only considered when the baby has an illness that would cause a lot of pain in his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My mother had lupus and was a kidney transplant recipient. She had to take steroids every day to keep her lupus in remission and keep her kidney functioning. Her doctors had told her she was most likely steril from all of her medication.
When she found out she was pregnant with me, it was a complete shock. Her doctor strongly suggested that she have an abortion. A growing fetus would be right up against her transplant and the steroids she was on could cause horrible birth defects. I have to point out that my mother was a very devout Lutheran (she's since passed away) and was very opposed to the idea. However, she had a 12 year old daughter and husband at home and decided to put them first.
She reluctantly agreed to terminate the pregnancy. However, they soon discovered that she was already 7 months along and an abortion was not possible. I was born 2 months later and was perfectly healthy.
I think of this and realize that I was very lucky. But had my mother been only one or two months along... could I have faulted her for going through with it? Absolutely not!
I realize that most women who get abortions are probably young and unmarried and the children are most likely unwanted or the mother feels that she cannot provide for a child. But I don't feel that government should legislate moral issues. I, myself, could never have an abortion, but I would never try to tell another woman she could not have one. It is not for me to judge. That has to be left up to the Creator, who I believe, is loving, merciful, and compassionate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe it's the case.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.
That was beautifully put, HK. Brought a tear to my eye, almost even. Your posts are by far my favourite on the whole internet, not just here.
Thank you.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME