User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 56

  1. #21
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Not Martin Luther King. There was a man who was pro-life, anti-war, a civil rights icon, etc.. He was consistent (and he was anti-war during a democratic presidency as well). Sister Helen Prejean is a similar figure. Many Catholics actually (Martin Sheen, the actor, is a famous example).
    I think King would be ripping apart Obama just like Dr. Cornel West... Well maybe a little more restrained.

    But, yeah the catholics are generally more consistent than Protestant conservatives as they tend to rely on a coherent political philosophy as opposed to a mere Smorgasbord of policy positions.


    Edit: here's the video of West on Obama and MLK.

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #22
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Catholic propaganda taught impressionable children that abortion is murder. And so when they grow up, no rational argument can reach them.

    So any rational argument causes visceral clutch. It bypasses the brain and hits the gut.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    We have had this discussion. What is new this time?

  4. #24
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    The interesting thing is that in societies with affordable, safe, and socially acceptable abortion, who also advocate contraception, abortion rates go down.

    I agree that the OP material is unappealing. However, what I think many pro-life supporters miss is that there is nothing inherently appealing about abortion to anyone; there never is and never will be anything "easy" about abortion. It wreaks havoc on the mother's body both physically and emotionally. It's just not an option for abortion to be easy or desirable because it runs against the inherent cycle of life. It's surprising to many pro-choice supporters that this even arises as part of discussion - it seems like more of an attempt to vilify the position than any real debate point. Abortion is shooting off one's own foot, to a certain extent - the whole issue is somewhat akin to suggesting that people like amputation and take some degree of pride in the right to cut off people's limbs. Or perhaps that chemotherapy is enjoyable. In all cases we have to run against the natural inclination of life, and that is inherently painful.

    Still, the assignment of extensive moral rights to a being that is neither self-aware nor autonomous is confusing to me. It would make more sense if pro-lifers were anti-war vegans, at least then it would be on a sliding scale. As it is, you have to accept that (A) humans are in an inherently superior class to all other organisms, (B) human life in any quality is more desirable than a lack of life, and/or (C) terminating human life for any reason is inherently wrong. And those all seem like beliefs to me, not neutral scientific evidence upon which it is fair to legislate restrictions on women's bodies.

  5. #25
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    ^ Excellent point, and what I was about to address. It amazes me that people just assume that if you aren't pro-life you automatically find abortions some sort of sick, awesome appealing process that can be tossed out in a room of young girls like a candy.

    There are many laws in our system today that are founded on beliefs.. science backing them up or not. We're a country ran by beliefs. But.. That doesn't really make that a right thing. Beliefs waiver.. they change. We say black people aren't equal, then they are. We say someone can pray on Sundays without getting fired, but a native american cannot smoke peyote. We don't like people crossing our borders, but we're a country founded on that very concept. Beliefs have shown in our laws time and time again to be faulty, flimsy things to use to base our laws on. The laws that stick with us the most are those that have science to back them up.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  6. #26
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    The interesting thing is that in societies with affordable, safe, and socially acceptable abortion, who also advocate contraception, abortion rates go down.

    I agree that the OP material is unappealing. However, what I think many pro-life supporters miss is that there is nothing inherently appealing about abortion to anyone; there never is and never will be anything "easy" about abortion. It wreaks havoc on the mother's body both physically and emotionally. It's just not an option for abortion to be easy or desirable because it runs against the inherent cycle of life. It's surprising to many pro-choice supporters that this even arises as part of discussion - it seems like more of an attempt to vilify the position than any real debate point. Abortion is shooting off one's own foot, to a certain extent - the whole issue is somewhat akin to suggesting that people like amputation and take some degree of pride in the right to cut off people's limbs. Or perhaps that chemotherapy is enjoyable. In all cases we have to run against the natural inclination of life, and that is inherently painful.

    Still, the assignment of extensive moral rights to a being that is neither self-aware nor autonomous is confusing to me. It would make more sense if pro-lifers were anti-war vegans, at least then it would be on a sliding scale. As it is, you have to accept that (A) humans are in an inherently superior class to all other organisms, (B) human life in any quality is more desirable than a lack of life, and/or (C) terminating human life for any reason is inherently wrong. And those all seem like beliefs to me, not neutral scientific evidence upon which it is fair to legislate restrictions on women's bodies.
    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    ^ Excellent point, and what I was about to address. It amazes me that people just assume that if you aren't pro-life you automatically find abortions some sort of sick, awesome appealing process that can be tossed out in a room of young girls like a candy.

    There are many laws in our system today that are founded on beliefs.. science backing them up or not. We're a country ran by beliefs. But.. That doesn't really make that a right thing. Beliefs waiver.. they change. We say black people aren't equal, then they are. We say someone can pray on Sundays without getting fired, but a native american cannot smoke peyote. We don't like people crossing our borders, but we're a country founded on that very concept. Beliefs have shown in our laws time and time again to be faulty, flimsy things to use to base our laws on. The laws that stick with us the most are those that have science to back them up.
    Both of these comments scare me.

    Our whole criminal justice system is based on morality not on science. There's nothing scientific about determining intent or basing culpability on intent. I don't think you two realize what sort of cold and calculating system you're advocating here. If we're merely going to be scientific when it comes to crime then we won't make distinctions between negligent homicide and first degree. If morality isn't taken into consideration then I'm not sure you wouldn't hold someone accountable for even a pure accident that caused death. After all if they make such mistake why keep a faulty human around?

    Moreover, the reality is that in assisting to determine certain facts science has actually made the the pro-life position more tenable as we know for certain that an unborn child is both alive and human.

    Edit: Actually, I should add that it really doesn't make any sense that one view is scientific and the other is not. Both views attribute value to human life and there's nothing scientific about that. The fact is that one side makes the scientific determination of certain standards of autonomy as a means of attributing value and the other makes the scientific determination that there must be a human life to attribute such value. So in the broader sense they both utilize morality and science. One isn't inherently more scientific than the other. We can argue about which is more moral.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #27
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    The interesting thing is that in societies with affordable, safe, and socially acceptable abortion, who also advocate contraception, abortion rates go down.

    I agree that the OP material is unappealing. However, what I think many pro-life supporters miss is that there is nothing inherently appealing about abortion to anyone; there never is and never will be anything "easy" about abortion. It wreaks havoc on the mother's body both physically and emotionally. It's just not an option for abortion to be easy or desirable because it runs against the inherent cycle of life. It's surprising to many pro-choice supporters that this even arises as part of discussion - it seems like more of an attempt to vilify the position than any real debate point. Abortion is shooting off one's own foot, to a certain extent - the whole issue is somewhat akin to suggesting that people like amputation and take some degree of pride in the right to cut off people's limbs. Or perhaps that chemotherapy is enjoyable. In all cases we have to run against the natural inclination of life, and that is inherently painful.

    Still, the assignment of extensive moral rights to a being that is neither self-aware nor autonomous is confusing to me. It would make more sense if pro-lifers were anti-war vegans, at least then it would be on a sliding scale. As it is, you have to accept that (A) humans are in an inherently superior class to all other organisms, (B) human life in any quality is more desirable than a lack of life, and/or (C) terminating human life for any reason is inherently wrong. And those all seem like beliefs to me, not neutral scientific evidence upon which it is fair to legislate restrictions on women's bodies.
    This summarizes all the points I generally raise regarding abortion. Anyone who finds this scary has an overly simplistic perspective on life. We don't have to prove an unborn child is not human, not independent, not viable, or anything else in order to acknowledge the greater right of the woman carrying it to self-determination. If someone really wants to consider a religious perspective, let them consider that "God" placed the responsibility for gestation with women; we humans should leave it in their hands. It is fine to discourage abortion, and even better to make it unnecessary through contraception and eliminating all sexual coercion. Making it illegal, or the decision of anyone but a woman and her chosen advisors, is both counterproductive and morally wrong.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #28
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This summarizes all the points I generally raise regarding abortion. Anyone who finds this scary has an overly simplistic perspective on life. We don't have to prove an unborn child is not human, not independent, not viable, or anything else in order to acknowledge the greater right of the woman carrying it to self-determination. If someone really wants to consider a religious perspective, let them consider that "God" placed the responsibility for gestation with women; we humans should leave it in their hands. It is fine to discourage abortion, and even better to make it unnecessary through contraception and eliminating all sexual coercion. Making it illegal, or the decision of anyone but a woman and her chosen advisors, is both counterproductive and morally wrong.
    Where does that right come from?

    Also, please don't make ridiculous claims that one view is simplistic and the other isn't, like that matters. We're both just trying to protect rights here.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    And those all seem like beliefs to me, not neutral scientific evidence upon which it is fair to legislate restrictions on women's bodies.
    The neutral scientific evidence is that a fetus is human life....it is a belief regarding what circumstances said human life is less important than the liberty of the mother, and that applies to both the pro-life and pro-choice positions (and all variations in between). Furthermore, every law that has ever existed is aimed toward promoting some kind of belief, whether its regarding the sanctity of human life, the liberty of the individual, the importance of the rule of law, or even might makes right.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    @Beorn

    Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal.

    ...

    But we make choices about life all the time in our country. We make them about men and women in other nations. We make them about prisoners in our penal system.

    ...

    Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

    ...

    My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too."She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.
    I nominate this guy for a post-natal abortion, 30 years too late.

Similar Threads

  1. Electoral College in the US Pros and Cons for Keeping?
    By Anew Leaf in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 12:43 AM
  2. [ISTJ] ISTJs are they all in the can for Mc Cain?
    By hermeticdancer in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 01:54 AM
  3. Who/What is to blame for McCain's decline in the polls?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM
  4. [Other] New group in the Triangle (NC) for NFs
    By proudphoenix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2008, 06:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO