Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Void

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru June 2002 » Void « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through June 01, 2002Crowlyman25 6-1-02  2:52 pm
Archive through June 03, 2002Mr_Rabid25 6-3-02  10:47 am
Archive through June 05, 2002Lordhobgoblin25 6-5-02  5:07 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Robertsmith
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 1:19 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

`
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 1:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Dr O,

It certainly is a difficult one but if you accept abortion then you will have to draw a line at a point when you deem it to be acceptable and wherever you choose to draw the line it will be arbitrary.

In the UK pro-lifers are not predominantly male. It is not a male v's female thing over here.

One of the main problems with the issue here is that the pro-life movements are not permitted to adequately demonstrate their point of view openly. I remember when SPUC were banned from publicly showing images simply of the stages of development of a foetus during pregnancy (these were not graphic images of abortions or the like but images you could find in any medical textbook). They were legally prevented from displaying this undisputed information at a public stand of their's because it would upset the public. Why would ths upset the public? Because the images show that from a very early stage a foetus looks just like a small child (which is what I believe it is).

Animal rights protestors (with whom I have a lot of sympathy) can display all manner of graphic images of vivisection and dismembered foxes etc. But for a pro-life organisation to display medical images from non-controversial sources, well the liberal establishment just can't have that.

Anyway enough of this topic. It's a tricky one to solve and we won't solve it here. Time for one of Chevalier's cyber-pints.

Hobgoblin
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hob:

I don't think it's a matter of drawing arbitrary lines for our convenience, but to look for some middle ground, fully knowing that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers will hate it.

Nobody wants abortion. In a perfect world education and birth control would replace it.

But this is not such world, so we have to find some compromise between the IUD absurdity and the late abortion almost-infanticide.

We also have to remember that this problem should be, as much as possible, defined and resolved by women.

We guys run the risk of "not getting it". As someone said: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Baz
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I don't think advocates for abortion would ever want to have an abortion forced on somebody. It's a choice to be allowed to control what is happening within a person's own body.
Robertsmith
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

`
Pikkle
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 10:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Avoid the NOID!!!
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Doc,

Yes I do believe life begins at conception. I don't believe in drawing arbitrary lines for our own convenience. I also believe that murder cannot be committed unless the person committing the act knows they are committing murder, but I do believe life should be protected. I'm not into condeming people, I approach the issue from a wish to protect people not condemn others. I don't believe in sin or guilt.

Hobgoblin
Pikkle
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

it's all just part of the cycle man... let it be... let it be...
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 9:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hob:

If you believe that life begins at conception, then a woman who wears an IUD is a murderer. That doesn't sound right.

A late abortion, where they actually have to kill a fetus that could live outside the womb, doesn't sound right either.

There has to be a middle ground. Three months? I'll leave that decision to people wiser than me.
Robertsmith
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 8:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

A recent Onion headline: "Factual error found on internet!!!"

If I were writing for a newspaper, I'd put in paragraph breaks. Sorry, I know it makes it difficult to read. Don't give me an F on my finals, OK?
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 8:29 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yes, I meant try TO learn them, for you grammatical purists out there.

But once you get down to grammar, the thread is already toast.
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 8:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Could we try and learn paragraph breaks, please?
Robertsmith
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 8:22 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Oh, and scientifically, a 4-6 week old fetus is actually less human than a full grown deer, in terms of mental capacity and capability. It's a POTENTIAL human. I'd like to see you try and eat a cake 2 minutes after you put it in the oven. You'd spit it out and say "bleccch, that's not a cake". Same thing with a 4-6 week old fetus. The brain in a 4-6 week old fetus, which is what makes us human, is nothing more than what's called a neural tube, and at that point is still making cells (stem cells) which are generic building blocks which have not yet become specialized to do the tasks which actual humans are capapble of. Is that a human? Not yet.
Robertsmith
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 8:08 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"It's not the religion that is to blame but the manipulation of religion. Religion does not cause such problems but it is used to justify causing such problems."--
You are aboslutely correct. However, it's myopic to blame all of religions foibles on politicians. Did politicians advocate bombing abortion clinics? No. A bunch of wackos who take an extrememly absolutist interpretation of the bible did. Politics is not to blame either. An absolutist mentatlity is. There was certainly political motivation behind the crusades, but it was still a religious war, and those who killed were killing because they believed their god gave them that authority, not because politicians told them to. You are correct that the problem is not religion. I think the problem is individual people using religion or god or anything bigger than themselves as the motive for their actions. If it's just you choosing to do something, suddenly all the responsibility falls on your shoulders and 100% of the accountability is yours. If however, you attribute your actions to the will of God, you are absolved of all personal responisibility. You become nothing more than a mere messenger. When you tell the homosexual he's going to hell for his "choice" (even though he was probably born that way), it's not you telling him that, you're just delivering a message which was gleaned from a 2000 year old notion of good and evil. When you fly the plane into the world trade center, it's not you who's entirely responsible for that decision, you are merely a vehicle of God's "will". As soon as one believes "the word of god" (which is incidentally entirely written and interpreted by imperfect Man) is absolute truth and infallible, then anything that contradicts that absolute is wrong and must be fought. I think a much healthier attitude is to avoid an absolutist stance and to be open to the possibillity that we don't have all the answers and it is our personal responsibility to learn all we can to better ourselves in THIS life. Most contemporary Christian religions however preach that accepting Jesus as your saviour and following his word comes before anything else and that the Bible is the absolute infallible truth. If you listen to your own desires and follow your human nature, you're in the wrong, and God will punish you. That isn't free will, that's coercion. If your mom says, go ahead eat the cookie, but if you do, I'm going to beat you for it, your "free will" is being bent by the potential consequences of your choice. Most religion I know of does not allow for any real excercise of free will. Sure you can make your own choices, but if they're not God's choices, you're going to hell. Fuck that man. That's why I reject it.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 7:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

But Baz, how much of "it's not a woman's place" attitude is down to Christianity and how much is down to socialisation? Society has been set up and run by men for men (it used to be by white men for white men). I would say that the attitudes in this regard are as a result of historical male social manipulation and not as a result of the influence of Christianity. Christianity (particularly when State power and Church power were synonomous) has been used as a political tool to defend the dominant postion of those in power. The crusades were not motivated by religion, rather religion was used as a cloak to justify political actions. The crusaders (certainly those in power) were not interested in saving any Moorish souls.

It's not the religion that is to blame but the manipulation of religion. Religion does not cause such problems but it is used to justify causing such problems.

The women in your town have not been indoctrinated by religion on this issue, rather they have been indoctrinated by the dominant powers in society who have used religion as a convenient tool. If religion wasn't there they find another tool to use. The problem is not religion, it never has been. The problem is politicians and those in power, it always has been.

Hobgoblin
Baz
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 7:18 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I live in the bible belt. I'm probably going to marry a religious girl, though I can personally take christianity or leave it. When I look at the history of christianity= the dark ages, the crusades(let's kill them so we can save them), murdering of abortion doctors, excomunication of galileo, kings and influential people creating their own versions of the bible and then hearing how THE KING JAMES VERSION is the true bible instead of the old translations...
it all seems like a comedy to me until I see how it influences people. Like the election we just had in our home town. 4 people running for mayor, 2 women and two men. I know I spoke to at least 25 women who went out of their way to vote because they didn't think it was right for a woman to be mayor and they were going to vote for the men. "it's not a woman's place" they said. Funny thing is, I never heard a man say that.

Can we say Indoctrination, children?
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 5:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Dr O,

Not all issues held dear by many fudamentalist Christians and at odds with much of the public at large are motivated by intolerance.

I have sympathy for their stance on abortion. They (and many others) believe that human life begins at conception, therefore it follows that abortion is the taking of a human life. They believe unborn babies to be their fellow human beings.

They believe unborn babies to be innocent children. Would you be happy to say "I personally will not take the life of an innocent child but will leave it down to individual choice whether someone else takes the life of an innocent child"? They believe unborn babies to be innocent children so how can you expect them to take a "leave it down to the individual" stance?

As for the anti-abortion stance being tied to fundamentalist Christians, well Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are all opposed to abortion (regardless of whether or not, like many Christians, these people follow their religion's doctrine on this matter). Many secular people too are opposed to abortion. It all depends on how you view unborn babies.

If you view them as your fellow human beings then it is not possible to take a stance that says "Let everyone decide for themselves about whether to kill these human beings" because you will view the un-born baby as having a right to life. It is only of you don't view unborn babies as human beings that you can take the stance "Let everybody decide for themselves" because you don't view the un-born baby to have any right to life.

I'm not a fundamentalist of any sort, I don't try to ram my beliefs down the throats of others, I don't believe I am always (or even mostly) right, but I do believe that all human beings have a right to life and I do believe that un-born babies are human beings. Therefore I believe their lives ought to be legally protected.

Hobgoblin

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page