Solutions

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what any of you look like or whether you're male or female.

Gee...your posts don't seem to support that assertion.

here's a few I've been privy to...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/452671-post33.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/450971-post65.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/451030-post68.html

:mrgreen:

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

Roberdorus said:
Actually, touchdowns aren't worth a single point. They're worth six, and if you run to the wrong end-zone you wouldn't score a touchdown for the other team. If you get tackled inside your own end-zone or step on the boundary lines inside your own end-zone, that would be a "safety" (worth two points for the other team). Learn something about football or don't use football analogies, please.
But, anyway, I agree with you. We should start talking about abortion or something.

Girlz don't know nuthin' about football..what didja expect?

1069 · Dec 23, 2006

Felicity said:
Girlz don't know nuthin' about football..what didja expect?

Well, that's true; my disinterest in sports is total; I don't know the rules of any sport, and I've never watched a sporting event in my life.

But, anyway, I agree with you. We should start talking about abortion or something.

I'm afraid that won't be possible; the people have spoken.
This thread is about a far more fascinating topic: me.
Any attempts to divert it will not be tolerated by my avid fans, Felicity and Talou.
Since I already know everything about me, I'll leave you guys to it.

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
Well, that's true; my disinterest in sports is total; I don't know the rules of any sport, and I've never watched a sporting event in my life.

I'm afraid that won't be possible; the people have spoken.
This thread is about a far more fascinating topic: me.
Any attempts to divert it will not be tolerated by my avid fans, Felicity and Talou.
Since I already know everything about me, I'll leave you guys to it.

eh...don't flatter yourself..you're but a trivial diversion...Maybe if Coffee can quit droolin' over you we could get back on topic. (oh lighten up CS--just yankin' your chain!

)

How about more on that any # of abortions is fine w/you...That's not what most pro-choicers say. Most claim abortions should be rare--why do you think it could be a perfectly viable method of BC? (no--the pun is not intended). And if that isn't what you think...please elucidate. Then explain why you don't think women should be given help to avoid feeling abortion is their only option. For a feminist, you sure don't like women.

1069 · Dec 23, 2006

How about more on that any # of abortions is fine w/you...That's not what most pro-choicers say. Most claim abortions should be rare--why do you think it could be a perfectly viable method of BC? (no--the pun is not intended). And if that isn't what you think...please elucidate.

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with abortion.
I don't think it's morally wrong.
I don't think it's killing.
I know it's far safer than childbirth; about twelve times safer.
I don't believe it's responsible to bring unwanted children into the world, or children that one is unable to care for.
I believe in contraception, but I also know it doesn't always work; nothing has a 100% efficacy rate.
Many types of contraception (specifically, hormonal contraception) are also contraindicated for women with preexisting health conditions; sometimes these women try to use them anyway, and this can lead to dire health consequences and even- atypically- death.
I do not judge anyone by their reproductive choices; I don't care what type of contraception a woman uses, or how many abortions a woman has had, or how many children, or how any of these pregnancies were conceived.
To me, these are merely medical issues, not moral ones.
As far as I'm concerned, a woman is under no obligation to share any of this information with anybody except her physician.
I don't really feel these things are any of my business, although if somebody wants to disclose their reproductive history, of course I'm always interested.
But I do not feel a woman's reproductive choices- whatever they are- indicate anything about her value as a human being.
My interest in the matter is morally neutral; she might as well be telling me what she cooked for dinner last night, which is equally interesting to me (although equally none of my business).

Honestly, I think a lot of prochoicers share my morally neutral stance on reproductive choice; this becomes far more clear when no prolifers are present (for instance, at a TARAL meeting).
But I think a lot of prochoicers (especially politicians) understand that regardless of how they feel privately, they have to publicly adopt a certain moral stance on the issue if they are to appeal to a broader audience.
Prolifers and centrists simply don't respond well to being told that one doesn't really see anything wrong with abortion; in fact, this is likely to elicit violent reactions from a certain segment of the population (witness Talou).
These same people, however, tend to respond rather positively to being told that abortion is regrettable and tragic yet necessary, blah blah blah.
More or less, it's the same thing being said: The right to reproductive freedom is necessary, inviolate, and non-negotiable. Period.
But if you add a little dollop of moral indignation against the misfortunate sluts who would avail themselves of such a procedure, prolifers just seem to take it better. It seems to make it more palatable to them.
So, anyway, that's why I think a lot of prochoicers do that; especially those in elected, policy-making positions where it is imperative that they court the moderate/centrist vote.
Others who carry on about the tragedy and regrettability of abortion, I think, are actually not prochoice at all; they are moderates or centrists who only call themselves "prochoice" because they don't wish to be associated with prolife extremists.
In fact, I'm pleased as punch that safe, legal abortion is available on demand, and it doesn't bother me a bit that women commonly avail themselves of it.
I'm not up for election, and I don't have to pretend to some pity I don't feel.

You've said yourself, Felicity, that you feel hormonal contraception prevents implantation of fertilized eggs, which in your opinion is the equivalent of an early abortion.
You also feel that IVF causes the death of "children".
Most people, however, have no problem with either of these reproductive choices.
It's not so much that they don't believe what you believe; it's just that they don't really care.
They view both hormonal contraception and IVF as morally neutral.
That doesn't make them cold, callous, dead-hearted, etc.
It just means they take a morally neutral stance on those issues.
While they may believe that IVF results in the discarding of fertilized eggs or that birth control pills sometimes prevent implantation, they simply don't care.
These facts (if facts they are) excite no particular moral indignation in the vast majority of folks.

And I... I simply don't see an embryo or fetus as being any more "a person" than a fertilized egg is. They're pretty much the same thing to me.
In that, I guess we're on the same page, because I've heard you say that you think all life is equally sacred and important, that a fertilized egg and a fetus are the same thing in your opinion, as well.
But see, most people don't see fertilized eggs as "children", so they don't care what happens to them.
I don't see fetuses as 'children", so I also don't care what happens to them.
I want all women to have access to complete bodily sovereignty, inasmuch as that is possible.
And that's my priority, when it comes to this issue.
Note, not my "top priority"; my only priority.
Because I don't believe fetuses are human beings, and therefore I believe the pregnant woman is the only person effected or involved.

Then explain why you don't think women should be given help to avoid feeling abortion is their only option.

I believe, if anything, too many women are being made to feel that abortion is not an option at all.
And sometimes, they're right.
Emboldened by years of conservative fundamentalist leadership, the prolife contingent has erected increasing obstacles to access (and even obstacles to access to accurate information on the subject).
And that's a problem, in my view.

For a feminist, you sure don't like women.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.
It's pretty silly.
I'm not real fluent in prolife double-speak, where "dignity" really means "slavery", where "free" means "imprison", where "like" means "dehumanize", where "protect" means "abrogate the fundamental rights of".

I like women just fine.
I feel that they and their physicians are in the best position to make their reproductive decisions, however; not me, not George Bush, not Jesus, not you.
And I don't feel there's any need for me to make any moral judgements about their decisions, nor to even know about them.
If "liking" somebody means making moral judgments about their reproductive health care decisions and abrogating their right to bodily sovereignty, then I hope you never start "liking" me.

talloulou · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
I don't think it's killing.

Then clearly you don't understand the procedure. :shock:

I don't believe it's responsible to bring unwanted children into the world, or children that one is unable to care for.

It would be easy to find a loving couple to give a newborn a new home.

But I think a lot of prochoicers (especially politicians) understand that regardless of how they feel privately, they have to publicly adopt a certain moral stance on the issue if they are to appeal to a broader audience.
Prolifers and centrists simply don't respond well to being told that one doesn't really see anything wrong with abortion; in fact, this is likely to elicit violent reactions from a certain segment of the population (witness Talou).
These same people, however, tend to respond rather positively to being told that abortion is regrettable and tragic yet necessary, blah blah blah.

I wouldn't respond positively to that though I do prefer it to the "I could care less rhetoric."

More or less, it's the same thing being said: The right to reproductive freedom is necessary, inviolate, and non-negotiable. Period.

Laws change, perspectives change, cultures change so that's a rather arrogant if not presumptuous statement.

But if you add a little dollop of moral indignation against the misfortunate sluts who would avail themselves of such a procedure, prolifers just seem to take it better.

I hear "slut" out of you more than anyone else. What's up with that?

It seems to make it more palatable to them.
So, anyway, that's why I think a lot of prochoicers do that; especially those in elected, policy-making positions where it is imperative that they court the moderate/centrist vote.

Lovely. Now that you've spent all that time telling me how prolifers like me feel why don't I take a gander on how you feel.

You would never admit that there is anything wrong with abortion because that would mean admitting possibly that you may have made a bad decision. Everything you say and do is merely to protect your own conscious. That's why instead of a "someone" it's a "thing." That's why you cling to the person argument even though "person" is a political and social construct that means whatever the hell politicians and lawmakers want it to mean. That's why you don't care if a woman has 12 abortions because admitting any were wrong might possibly be an admission that you've done wrong and you can't handle that so you cling to this idea that prolifers are prudish beasts that hate women.

1069 · Dec 23, 2006

You would never admit that there is anything wrong with abortion because that would mean admitting possibly that you may have made a bad decision. Everything you say and do is merely to protect your own conscious. That's why instead of a "someone" it's a "thing." That's why you cling to the person argument even though "person" is a political and social construct that means whatever the hell politicians and lawmakers want it to mean.

You've got me mixed up with someone else; I don't cling to any "person" argument; in fact I dislike arguments over semantics, as I feel they tend to divert threads away from the real issues.
I've said repeatedly since I joined this forum that it really doesn't matter to me whether fetuses are people (although I personally believe they are not).
No person has the right to inhabit the body of an unwilling host, nor to extract bodily resources from other people without their consent.
So even if a fetus is a perfectly viable miniature human being, who is simultaneously composing a sonata and developing a cure for cancer in utero... it doesn't get to remain inside the body of another person, if that person doesn't want it there.
That's not a right that people have. I don't have it; you don't; George Bush doesn't; Pope Ratzinger doesn't.
I can't take your blood, bone marrow, or kidneys against your will, even if I need them to live.
Infringing upon your right to bodily autonomy is not one of my human rights.
So... no.
I don't think a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person, a child, a human being, or an autonomous being of any sort, although it does contain human DNA. Sort of like my fingernail clippings. That doesn't mean they're people, though.
But even if Z/E/Fs are people- and no matter how innocent, sentient, and cute they are- it doesn't change my stance on abortion.
They do not have the right to inhabit the bodies of unwilling hosts.
They do not have the right to a parasitic relationship with an unwilling host.
Nobody has that right.

You overestimate my conscience, I'm afraid; even if I suddenly woke up one day and decided that fetuses are actually people, and that in having an abortion over ten years ago, I "murdered" a "person"... I'm not sure it would really have much effect on me emotionally. I'm not sure it would even prevent me from doing it again, should I ever find myself in similar circumstances.
I don't care about some fetus. I've got children to take care of, and at the time I was a child myself, trying to take care of my children.
Enduring another pregnancy was an impossibility. The very idea was intolerable. I would never regret terminating that unwanted pregnancy, regardless of whether my beliefs about fetal personhood ever changed.
Every time I look at my family, at how well we're doing, it validates my choice all over again.

For these reasons and many others, I will never stop combatting any and all attempts to infringe upon women's right to reproductive choice.

Voidwar · Dec 23, 2006

Well Said 1069

talloulou · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
You've got me mixed up with someone else; I don't cling to any "person" argument; in fact I dislike arguments over semantics, as I feel they tend to divert threads away from the real issues.
I've said repeatedly since I joined this forum that it really doesn't matter to me whether fetuses are people (although I personally believe they are not).

Sounds like clinging to me. You routinely call it a "thing" vs a human.

No person has the right to inhabit the body of an unwilling host, nor to extract bodily resources from other people without their consent.

The unborn don't invade their host like some univited guest. The host "creates" the unborn along with her partner. You bring that "someone" into existence.

it doesn't get to remain inside the body of another person, if that person doesn't want it there.

No not when the current laws allow the mother to hire a dr. to kill it.

I can't take your blood, bone marrow, or kidneys against your will, even if I need them to live.

completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the way nature has set up motherhood.

Infringing upon your right to bodily autonomy is not one of my human rights.

No but it may very well someday be the right of the unborn in regards to their mothers. Mothers shouldn't need laws banning them from killing the baby in their womb but we've created a new mentality where apparently they do. Women have taken advantage of abortion and it's gonna come back and bite them in the arse.

I don't think a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person, a child, a human being, or an autonomous being of any sort, although it does contain human DNA. Sort of like my fingernail clippings.

Your fingernails are not a living human organism. Neither is your blood, hair, ect. A fertilized embryo is so it matters not how uneducated you are. You may compare the unborn to your fingernails to ease your conscious but a scientist never would.

That doesn't mean they're people, though.

Still clinging.

But even if Z/E/Fs are people- and no matter how innocent, sentient, and cute they are- it doesn't change my stance on abortion.
They do not have the right to inhabit the bodies of unwilling hosts.

They're not things. They're mothers not "hosts." And the unborn don't invade univited they are created by their mothers and their fathers.

They do not have the right to a parasitic relationship with an unwilling host.
Nobody has that right.

The type of rhetoric that will bring your side down in the end. The type of rhetoric that will make future generations cringe in shame.

Every time I look at my family, at how well we're doing, it validates my choice all over again.

Adoption is a more courageous choice. Ask any adopted child and they'll agree.

For these reasons and many others, I will never stop combatting any and all attempts to infringe upon women's right to reproductive choice.

Abortion has become so common that there are millions like you raising kids to think just like you do so the mentality is very ingrained but in the end humanity will come around and evolve. The world is feeling the pain of abortion. Countries are suffering because the existing population isn't even breeding at replacement levels. Women are seeing that around the world females are aborted or killed after birth for just being female! Eventually the thought patterns will change. On top of that birth control methods are being updated all the time, working better, and becomming ridiculously easy to use. There is just no excuse for the abortion numbers we see today and I think people are beginning to wake up.

1069 · Dec 23, 2006

talloulou said:
Sounds like clinging to me. You routinely call it a "thing" vs a human.

The unborn don't invade their host like some univited guest. The host "creates" the unborn along with her partner. You bring that "someone" into existence.

No not when the current laws allow the mother to hire a dr. to kill it.

completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the way nature has set up motherhood.

No but it may very well someday be the right of the unborn in regards to their mothers. Mothers shouldn't need laws banning them from killing the baby in their womb but we've created a new mentality where apparently they do. Women have taken advantage of abortion and it's gonna come back and bite them in the arse.

Your fingernails are not a living human organism. Neither is your blood, hair, ect. A fertilized embryo is so it matters not how uneducated you are. You may compare the unborn to your fingernails to ease your conscious but a scientist never would.

Still clinging.

They're not things. They're mothers not "hosts." And the unborn don't invade univited they are created by their mothers and their fathers.

The type of rhetoric that will bring your side down in the end. The type of rhetoric that will make future generations cringe in shame.

Adoption is a more courageous choice. Ask any adopted child and they'll agree.

Abortion has become so common that there are millions like you raising kids to think just like you do so the mentality is very ingrained but in the end humanity will come around and evolve. The world is feeling the pain of abortion. Countries are suffering because the existing population isn't even breeding at replacement levels. Women are seeing that around the world females are aborted or killed after birth for just being female! Eventually the thought patterns will change. On top of that birth control methods are being updated all the time, working better, and becomming ridiculously easy to use. There is just no excuse for the abortion numbers we see today and I think people are beginning to wake up.

Well, if in a hundred years, future generations are cringing in shame over me or over abortion in general (and/or the human race has become extinct because of abortion), I'll buy you a coke. How about that?

Wait; I think somebody already said that.
Oh well, it was clever, and bears repeating.

talloulou · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
Well, if in a hundred years, future generations are cringing in shame over me or over abortion in general (and/or the human race has become extinct because of abortion), I'll buy you a coke. How about that?

Wait; I think somebody already said that.
Oh well, it was clever, and bears repeating.

I do very much prefer coke to pepsi so that sounds good to me!

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with abortion.
I don't think it's morally wrong.
I don't think it's killing.
I know it's far safer than childbirth; about twelve times safer.

if one never got pregnant in the first place the point would be moot.
I hope you consider that the repercussions of abortion extend beyond the mere procedure--and how the stats are gathered.
Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000 -- Gissler et al. 15 (5): 459 -- The European Journal of Public Health
Physicians For Life - Abstinence, Abortion, Birth Control - Fact Or Fraud: Is Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?

I don't believe it's responsible to bring unwanted children into the world, or children that one is unable to care for.

But the way to combat that is not killing that which is conceived. Stop the conception--then the issue is moot.

I believe in contraception, but I also know it doesn't always work; nothing has a 100% efficacy rate.

One of the reasons I'm not for contraception. I believe it is behaviors that can prevent pregnancies--not chemicals or empty latex promises. NOT doing it is 100% effective--realistic or not--it is the only SURE way.

Many types of contraception (specifically, hormonal contraception) are also contraindicated for women with preexisting health conditions; sometimes these women try to use them anyway, and this can lead to dire health consequences and even- atypically- death.

Further reason to forgo sexual relations unless one is willing to accept the consequences of sex.

I do not judge anyone by their reproductive choices; I don't care what type of contraception a woman uses, or how many abortions a woman has had, or how many children, or how any of these pregnancies were conceived.
To me, these are merely medical issues, not moral ones.

Please--expand on this. Many medical choices are very much moral issues. How do you separate these so finally? What is the defining line that says abortion has no moral implications in your thinking?

As far as I'm concerned, a woman is under no obligation to share any of this information with anybody except her physician.
I don't really feel these things are any of my business, although if somebody wants to disclose their reproductive history, of course I'm always interested.

Of course she has a right to privacy--but one's right to privacy is limited if it is determined harm is being done.

But I do not feel a woman's reproductive choices- whatever they are- indicate anything about her value as a human being.

Aaahhh...you feel judged. This is probably why talloulou said she believes you are "merely [trying] to protect your own conscious." I'm inclined to agree due to the way you present your case and the information concerning your two completed pregnancies and your third pregnancy ending in abortion. Believe me when I say, abortion does not diminish a woman's value as a human being. She is of infinite worth. I can understand how a person with the history you have chosen to share might develop such armor in order to live with the reality of choices she has made. It is only human. But I think it must be awfully painful. Rachel's Vineyard International Leadership Conference

My interest in the matter is morally neutral; she might as well be telling me what she cooked for dinner last night, which is equally interesting to me (although equally none of my business).
Honestly, I think a lot of prochoicers share my morally neutral stance on reproductive choice; this becomes far more clear when no prolifers are present (for instance, at a TARAL meeting).But I think a lot of prochoicers (especially politicians) understand that regardless of how they feel privately, they have to publicly adopt a certain moral stance on the issue if they are to appeal to a broader audience.
Prolifers and centrists simply don't respond well to being told that one doesn't really see anything wrong with abortion;

NARAL claims publicly to state that they wish abortion was rare. Are you saying that privately that is not their aim? Please...do tell....

in fact, this is likely to elicit violent reactions from a certain segment of the population (witness Talou).

Well...if you consider a little word-war violence...:shock: Damn--I've been gang raped by pro-choicers!:roll:

These same people, however, tend to respond rather positively to being told that abortion is regrettable and tragic yet necessary, blah blah blah.

So the abortion should be rare is a political smoke and mirrors trick? That's what it appears you are saying...is this so?

More or less, it's the same thing being said: The right to reproductive freedom is necessary, inviolate, and non-negotiable. Period.
But if you add a little dollop of moral indignation against the misfortunate sluts who would avail themselves of such a procedure, prolifers just seem to take it better. It seems to make it more palatable to them.

Ummmmm....and you have a problem with a patriarchal system acting in such a way toward women...what about women acting in such a way toward women...? What you have described here is a condescending elitist and a consciously patronizing platform for political maneuvering. That is subversive and wholly immoral--let alone contrary to all that you claim to stand for.

So, anyway, that's why I think a lot of prochoicers do that; especially those in elected, policy-making positions where it is imperative that they court the moderate/centrist vote.
Others who carry on about the tragedy and regrettability of abortion, I think, are actually not prochoice at all; they are moderates or centrists who only call themselves "prochoice" because they don't wish to be associated with prolife extremists.

Wow..what a dark place you perceive the world to be.

In fact, I'm pleased as punch that safe, legal abortion is available on demand, and it doesn't bother me a bit that women commonly avail themselves of it.
I'm not up for election, and I don't have to pretend to some pity I don't feel.

You don't come off very pleased as punch in 99% of your posts. In fact...I almost feel guilty discussing with you because your pain is so evident. You'll deny it i know--but, that's what I see.

You've said yourself, Felicity, that you feel hormonal contraception prevents implantation of fertilized eggs, which in your opinion is the equivalent of an early abortion.
You also feel that IVF causes the death of "children".
Most people, however, have no problem with either of these reproductive choices.
It's not so much that they don't believe what you believe; it's just that they don't really care.
They view both hormonal contraception and IVF as morally neutral.

They should care. If they THINK they may allow themselves to care if they can handle the reality of what it all means and can accept their part in it. I know that I may have aborted unknowingly when I used contraception. I regret that--I wish it never happened--but I accept it and I move forward without making the mistake again. The past is past. The next moment is what matters--and after that it is the following moment..and so on.

That doesn't make them cold, callous, dead-hearted, etc.
It just means they take a morally neutral stance on those issues.
While they may believe that IVF results in the discarding of fertilized eggs or that birth control pills sometimes prevent implantation, they simply don't care.
These facts (if facts they are) excite no particular moral indignation in the vast majority of folks.

Morality pays no credence to opinion polls.

And I... I simply don't see an embryo or fetus as being any more "a person" than a fertilized egg is. They're pretty much the same thing to me.
In that, I guess we're on the same page, because I've heard you say that you think all life is equally sacred and important, that a fertilized egg and a fetus are the same thing in your opinion, as well.

Hey--are you an absolutist at heart?!

But see, most people don't see fertilized eggs as "children", so they don't care what happens to them.
I don't see fetuses as 'children", so I also don't care what happens to them.
I want all women to have access to complete bodily sovereignty, inasmuch as that is possible.
And that's my priority, when it comes to this issue.
Note, not my "top priority"; my only priority.
Because I don't believe fetuses are human beings, and therefore I believe the pregnant woman is the only person effected or involved.

The condition of pregnancy carries with it the reality of that other life. Even if your only concern is the pregnant woman, abortion harms women more than never being in the position to consider one. Also--if it is only the woman you are concerned with--why not offer her the widest options and make her decision to abort or not abort truly "fair" by eliminating the conditions that lead her to consider the situation of motherhood impossible. Allow her the opportunity to simply decide based on her desire alone. Wouldn't that be the most respectful and truly egalitarian thing?

I believe, if anything, too many women are being made to feel that abortion is not an option at all.
And sometimes, they're right.
Emboldened by years of conservative fundamentalist leadership, the prolife contingent has erected increasing obstacles to access (and even obstacles to access to accurate information on the subject).
And that's a problem, in my view.

Please...the pro-life side has lost and lost and lost in the activist courts. The only thing that keeps it going is grassroots tenacity and the sheer common sense of the average American.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.
It's pretty silly.
I'm not real fluent in prolife double-speak, where "dignity" really means "slavery", where "free" means "imprison", where "like" means "dehumanize", where "protect" means "abrogate the fundamental rights of".

I'd be happy to explain...but I think I've given you plenty to respond to so far.

I like women just fine.

:roll: What a ringing endorsement.

1069 · Dec 23, 2006

NARAL claims publicly to state that they wish abortion was rare. Are you saying that privately that is not their aim? Please...do tell....

Really?
I'm a member of NARAL, as well as TARAL, and they've never mentioned that to me.
Maybe you're thinking of Planned Parenthood.
They're big on prevention.
As far as I know, NARAL's main concern is keeping both abortion and contraception legal and accessible.
Their mission statement:

NARAL Pro-Choice America Mission Statement
NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation Mission Statement
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation's mission is to support and protect, as a fundamental right and value, a woman's freedom to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices through education, training, organizing, legal action, and public policy.

I don't see a thing about making abortion "rare".

Although it wouldn't surprise me if some representative of the organization did say that, at one time or another, and it wouldn't even surprise me if some of them actually feel that way.

I almost feel guilty discussing with you because your pain is so evident.

Well, maybe if you feel sorry enough for me, you'll stop trying to abrogate women's human rights.
The sort of talk and behavior prolifers routinely engage in is very demeaning and hurtful to me and to many other women.
Although I'm more or less numb to it, by now.

Please--expand on this. Many medical choices are very much moral issues. How do you separate these so finally?

The only morals that matter in medical situations are the personal morals of the patient in question.
Medical matters are private; they are between a patient and his or her doctor. They are privileged.
No one has the right to access private medical records.
No one has a right to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient.

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

1069 said:
Really?
I'm a member of NARAL, as well as TARAL, and they've never mentioned that to me.
Maybe you're thinking of Planned Parenthood.
They're big on prevention.
As far as I know, NARAL's main concern is keeping both abortion and contraception legal and accessible.
Their mission statement:

NARAL Anniversary Luncheon

6 times in the speech by Ms. Clinton...

If that's not NARAL's position...why have her speak at the Annaversary luncheon?

Although it wouldn't surprise me if some representative of the organization did say that, at one time or another, and it wouldn't even surprise me if some of them actually feel that way.

Eh..it's probably just that manipulative elitist politics, eh?

The only morals that matter in medical situations are the personal morals of the patient in question.
Medical matters are private; they are between a patient and his or her doctor. They are privileged.
No one has the right to access private medical records.
No one has a right to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient.

I'll bet you're a big supporter of Rush Limbaugh on that one, eh?:mrgreen:

talloulou · Dec 23, 2006

While it's critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.

Abortion

They don't say rare on their website. But the Clintons do every time the topic of abortion comes up.

In any regard why wouldn't anyone want abortion to be "rare" or "less necessary?" Even if you have no moral qualms about abortion whatsoever it's always better to not have or need surgery more than it is to need or have it.

I think though that there are many who feel that women have abused the right to abortion. I think many are okay with it conditionally. Anotherwards they see it as horrible but better than the alternative of kids having kids or women trying to do their own abortions in the kitchen. But many are against it as a form of birth control and they get uncomfortable with the numbers and the idea that it's being abused. The factors often brought up are the mother's health, rape, teens, ect.....but the actual numbers and statistics tell us that many grown women are having abortions just because they don't want to be pregnant. Some of them are having late term abortions and even going so far as to abort viable babies just 'cause they want to. People don't like that. And it's those abuses that open abortion up for more regulation.

The average person is willing to be compassionate to a point. They are willing to feel for the woman who unintentionally got knocked up to a point. But the average person doesn't like repeat abortions, abortions as a form of birth control, women choosing to abort because the baby is a female, ect.... The compassion for the women goes down. And then there's the rhetoric where mother's become "hosts" and babies become "parasites" and that's when people really start getting turned off. So politicians use terms like "rare" to distance themselves from those who are out there talking about abortion as if it's nothing and saying crap about how they care more about stray dogs than the male or female in the sonogram.

Felicity · Dec 23, 2006

talloulou said:
So politicians use terms like "rare" to distance themselves from those who are out there talking about abortion as if it's nothing and saying crap about how they care more about stray dogs than the male or female in the sonogram.

Damn...I'm so naive sometimes...

1069 · Dec 24, 2006

If that's not NARAL's position...why have her speak at the Annaversary luncheon?

Uh... because she's Hilary Clinton, and will probably be the next President of the United States?
What organization wouldn't want her to speak at their luncheon, no matter what she said?

But I don't know; maybe that's how the top brass at NARAL feels, as well; I am not privy to anything but what they tell me via newsletters, petitions, and press releases, which haven't- that I've noticed- contained any reference to wishing abortion were "rare".
Although it's always a safe sentiment, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did say it.
My understanding has been that keeping abortion safe, legal, and accessible is their main goal, rather than combatting abortion or lessening the frequency with which abortions occur.
They tend to put most of their resources into combatting attempts by prolife legislators to infringe on women's rights, rather than combatting abortion rates themselves.
There's always Planned Parenthood, after all; educating people about safe sex and passing out contraception is their bag.
Making sure sex ed, contraception, and abortion all remain safe, legal, and accessible is NARAL's.

I'm not claiming to know how any prochoicer other than myself feels about abortion.
I offered some theories or educated guesses about why people claiming to be prochoicers sometimes refer to abortion as "tragic" and "regrettable", and express the wish that it was a rarer occurrence than it is.
But really, there's no way for me to know what they're thinking.
I can only supposition.
You should ask others; maybe there are other prochoicers right here on this forum who wish to decrease the abortion rate, and who can explain to you why they feel that way.
It simply isn't one of my personal priorities.
Abortion rates increase in times of recession and high unemployment.
Who am I to coerce, pressure, or even encourage women to gestate fetuses they don't want and can't afford, placing undue hardship on themselves and their existing children?
I'll do no such thing. It's a personal decision, and I won't judge them one way or the other.
My priority is ensuring that every woman or girl has access to safe, legal abortion if she is pregnant and doesn't want to be.
Having access to abortion doesn't mean one has to have an abortion. I would certainly never encourage anybody- regardless of their circumstances- to have an abortion if they wanted to continue a pregnancy.
Nevertheless, it is crucial that the option is there.

talloulou · Dec 24, 2006

1069 said:
Uh... because she's Hilary Clinton, and will probably be the next President of the United States?

Pure delusions of grandeur.

What organization wouldn't want her to speak at their luncheon, no matter what she said?

The GOP? :mrgreen:

I'm not claiming to know how any prochoicer other than myself feels about abortion.

Odd because you don't refrain from claiming how prolifers supposedly feel.

1069 · Dec 24, 2006

Odd because you don't refrain from claiming how prolifers supposedly feel.

Well, it's all just theoretical.
I mean, I've said that enough times, jeesh. :roll:
I say it all the time: "This is my theory about ___."
"Here's what I think about ___."
I'm assuming nobody here thinks I'm psychic, or omnipotent, or claiming to be.
Just in case anybody does, I'll take care to reiterate even more often that "This is what I think" and "This is my theory", since the ten billion and two times I've already qualified my statements this way are apparently not sufficient.

talloulou · Dec 24, 2006

1069 said:
Well, it's all just theoretical.
I mean, I've said that enough times, jeesh. :roll:
I say it all the time: "This is my theory about ___."
"Here's what I think about ___."
I'm assuming nobody here thinks I'm psychic, or omnipotent, or claiming to be.
Just in case anybody does, I'll take care to reiterate even more often that "This is what I think" and "This is my theory", since the ten billion and two times I've already qualified my statements this way are apparently not sufficient.

Ah I'm just bored. Guess I'll haul myself off to bed.

Before I go though let me just say that I'm awfully flattered to be quoted in your sig.

FutureIncoming · Dec 26, 2006

Felicity said:
Mathusian Catastrophe crapola ... it is just a plain old FALSE DICHOTOMY error in logic that I can't take it any more.

I see you are spouting more unproved claims. Let's see the evidence supporting your statements, please?

Felicity said:
Sorry...I don't have the patience to untangle your post. Someone with more time on their hands can deal with it

Cop out alert! What you are trying to hide is the fact that you are incapable of refuting valid facts and logic. That's OK; neither can anyone else.

Felicity · Dec 26, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
I see you are spouting more unproved claims. Let's see the evidence supporting your statements, please?

It ignores advances in technology that can aid survival of man, it ignores other means of population declines such as disease or wars etc...It denys the renewability of the organism earth....It is something to "think about" but it is NOTHING of substance.

Cop out alert! What you are trying to hide is the fact that you are incapable of refuting valid facts and logic. That's OK; neither can anyone else.

No...I've always asked that you try to be pithy. As Jerry pointed out recently--the digressions become the focus of your posts. To me--it's like smoke and mirrors. You've got to wave through a bunch of smoke to get even a notion of your main point. If it's so profound--state your point in PLAIN SIGHT please.

FutureIncoming · Dec 26, 2006

talloulou said:
It would be easy to find a loving couple to give a newborn a new home.

That's an unproved claim, at least as far as the long term is concerned. That is, you are assuming that if 1 million abortions did not occur every year, then 1 million "loving couples" would appear, every year, forever, to claim the newborns and care for them. Let's see the evidence for that!

talloulou said:
You would never admit that there is anything wrong with abortion because that would mean admitting possibly that you may have made a bad decision.

Hey, suppose I changed that word "wrong" to "right", and applied that quote to you, talloulou? Could it be possible that you have made a bad decision to prejudicially favor human life over other life? Will it take a Malthusean Catastrophe, and the associated death of 90-99% of all humans, to prove to you that you have made a bad decision?

talloulou to 1069 said:
You routinely call it a "thing" vs a human.

I do thank you for not using the phrase "human being". Perhaps 1069 needs the relevant piece of information, that "human" and "human being" are not automatically the same thing, as indicated by the evidence that we can say "alien" and "alien being" and mean two different things; we can say "robot" and "robot being" and mean two different things; we can say "lizard" and "lizard being" and mean two different things. The second always includes an implication of significant intelligence; the first is just a body.

talloulou said:
The unborn don't invade their host like some univited guest. The host "creates" the unborn along with her partner. You bring that "someone" into existence.

UTTERLY FALSE. Natural Mindless Biology is fully independent of the choices that humans make. I see that there is another Thread here having the ridiculous title, "Is pregnancy a conscious choice" when all the evidence is against the notion. Otherwise there would not be 1/7 or so of all couples infertile, such that no matter how much they chose to "create" a pregnancy, they won't be able to do it. Logically, therefore, Natural Mindless Biology is the thing that causes pregnancies to happen, even when they happen in spite of consious choices to use birth control (even sterilizations have been known to fail). This would never happen if humans actually had conscious control over the pregancy process.

Do you remember this analogy, talloulou? If you choose to walk near a bog, and a mosquito, created by Mindless Natural Biology, flies out to implant its probocis and get at your blood, must you let it? Then why, just because you might choose to participate in sex, must you let Natural Mindless Biology decide for you whether or not some blastocyst can implant into your womb and get at your blood? Do you have any reason besides the worthless prejudice of undeveloped human life over fully-developed mosquito life?

talloulou said:
has nothing to do with the way nature has set up motherhood.

There are plenty of things that nature has set up that humans routinely disagree with. That's why we invented vaccines, for example. Who are you to say that we must agree with the way that nature set up motherhood?

talloulou said:
{{Infringing upon mothers' bodies}} may very well someday be the right of the unborn in regards to their mothers.

This can only be true if various circumstances change. Perhaps AFTER a Malthusean Catastrophe has eliminated 99% of humans, the survivors might decide they need to implement a "be fruitful and multiply" policy, regardless of the women think, who would have to do the hardest work. OR, someone might notice that if we have 6 billion humans alive now, and 99% die, then that leaves 60 million survivors, and no speices on this planet is considered "endangered" if it has that much population. Why would there be a need to enforce such a policy, therefore?

talloulou said:
Mothers shouldn't need laws banning them from killing the baby in their womb

AGREED. No such laws are needed, ever.

talloulou said:
but we've created a new mentality where apparently they do.

That's just an unsupported opinion. Who are you to interfere with other peoples' choices, as far as those choices only involve animals, and don't include torture?

talloulou said:
Women have taken advantage of abortion and it's gonna come back and bite them in the arse.

More claims. PROVE IT.

talloulou said:
Your fingernails are not a living human organism. Neither is your blood, hair, ect. A fertilized embryo is

AGREED. Well, not entirely. That phrase "fertilized embryo" is invalid. Try "fertilized ovum" instead. Embryos don't exist until more than a week after fertilization, maybe two weeks. Anyway, setting that bit of precision aside, it remains true that a fertilized ovum is indeed a living organism. It is just an animal organism, though. Usually easily replaced, it is nothing special, except in the uneducated/ignorant minds of the prejudiced.

FutureIncoming · Dec 26, 2006

Felicity said:
{{the notion that a Malthusean Catastrophe can happen}} ignores advances in technology that can aid survival of man,

FALSE. Because, we can mathematically prove it is an inevitable consequences of an ever-increasing population, no matter how much technology we have available. Isaac Asimov, who wrote something more than 200 nonfiction books on just about every subject, analyzing the birth rate of the late 1960s, showed that in less than 6000 years we could have so many humans that it would equal all the mass of the Observable Universe. ((If you can find it, see "The Power of Progression")) We could actually do such a thing if we had such technologies as instantaneous transportation anywhere, and perfected element-transmutation. We could take entire stars apart to get the matter needed, to allow increased population growth. Of course, after that 6000 years went by, there would be ZERO stars left, and zero planets, and zero bacteria or anything else, besides human bodies. Dead bodies, of course. No matter would remain, in any of the forms known as "food" or "air" or "water"!

Since the 1960s the human population growth rate has slowed, but that only puts that day-of-the-consumed-Universe off, maybe a few extra thousand years. The only thing that can prevent a Malthusean Catastrophe is Zero Population Growth. Because as long as the Universe is a finite object and human population grows, it is inevitable that it will all get consumed eventually.

Felicity said:
it ignores other means of population declines such as disease or wars etc...

Tsk, tsk, each of those usually counts as a mini-Catastrophe. Too many people and not enough resourses, is the cause of almost every one of them. Just like an overall large-scale/widespread Malthusean Catastrophe will have that same cause.

Felicity said:
It denys the renewability of the organism earth....

This is nonsense, unless you are talking about timescales of the tens of millions of years. Humans cut down ALL the trees on Easter Island, before suffering a Malthusean Catastrophe there. If we do the same all over the rest of the planet, and eat too many of the fish in the sea ((see Wikipedia article)), then they will not be replaced by Nature any time soon. Most of the human species will die, certainly, before any new species of trees or fish come along.

It is something to "think about" but it is NOTHING of substance.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The evidence is that we will be having a full-fledged Malthusean Castrophe, thanks in part to idiot pro-lifers, in less than a decade. We have just about run out of time to invent/apply any technolgy that can stave it off.

Felicity · Dec 26, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. . Isaac Asimov,

If we're gonna use primarily Sci-FICTION writers for science....Have you ever read the Hand-Maids Tale? Hey--What about that movie Soilent Green?

"It's Peeeeeeoooooppppllle!!!!!!

who wrote something more than 200 nonfiction books on just about every subject, analyzing the birth rate of the late 1960s, showed that in less than 6000 years we could have so many humans that it would equal all the mass of the Observable Universe. ((If you can find it, see "The Power of Progression"))

Dude...did you see the mag it was published in?

The Power of Progression
Subject: overpopulation
First Published In: May-69, The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction
Collection(s):

1971 The Stars in their Courses

If his conclusions were "sustainable" so to speak...wouldn't they be scholarly articles in Journals of science?

Since the 1960s the human population growth rate has slowed, but that only puts that day-of-the-consumed-Universe off, maybe a few extra thousand years. The only thing that can prevent a Malthusean Catastrophe is Zero Population Growth. Because as long as the Universe is a finite object and human population grows, it is inevitable that it will all get consumed eventually.

How so? Naw......It's too much a digression....

Tsk, tsk, each of those usually counts as a mini-Catastrophe. Too many people and not enough resourses, is the cause of almost every one of them. Just like an overall large-scale/widespread Malthusean Catastrophe will have that same cause.

So you dream of a day where no one dies and everyone births uncontrollably. Your fantasy is so strict that it is Fiction--that's why it is a false dichotomy--you don't allow for unknown variables..

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! .....idiot pro-lifers

Gee....so nice...:roll: MAlthusian Catastrophe in 10 years? You're on buddy! :rofl (BTW--I like your qualifier "just about")