Pro-lifers have a "final solution" for anyone having extramarital sex--just say no!
In addition to the usual crimes against humanity, yesterday I saw at least two cases on the local news of horrendous torture, sexual abuse, and murder of innocent children at the hands of their own families. Is this the kind of blood the pro-lifers really want on their hands?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Matthew T. Sussman
I thought Roe v. Wade put an end to all the controversy over abortion! Why are we still talking about it?
(please note the sarcasm and think of the childrens)
77 - Elvira Black
Ruvy:
Where could they go? Israel wasn't settled yet, was it?
Perhaps a discussion for another time--or another post. Is there someplace you've written about this in depth? Would like to see.
KYS, Matthew: Two cackles--one for each of you!
78 - Elvira Black
He--hello?
Is anybody home in the comments section?
It's lonely and dark in here. Help!
Hey, where'd y'all go? Y'all come back now, here?
79 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mandate Palestine...
Whattsa matter? Boyfriend ain't home to chase you off the computer? ;o)
80 - Bing
There seems to be a little hypocrisy with regard to the man's involvement in the decision to have an abortion or not.
Legally the man has no say in wether or not the woman he impregnanted has an abortion. However if the woman decides to have the child the man is legally responsible for paying child support. So it is ok for a woman to kill a baby because she doesn't want it to cramp her lifestyle but a man doesn't have the choice one way or the other? The decision to bring the child into the world is totally up to the woman who decides based on whatever reason she sees fit and if the man must not only abide by the decision but provide for the child if it is born. Basically when a pregnancy occurs that could dramatically affect the life of the man and the woman, only the woman has any say in how.
Seems like a vicious double satndard, one that most pro-choicers don't seem to mind.
81 - Elvira Black
Ruvy: He's staying outta my hair today, kineahora.
Bing: Whew...Thank you! I'll be back to respond in a bit.
82 - JR
Bing: Legally the man has no say in wether or not the woman he impregnanted has an abortion. However if the woman decides to have the child the man is legally responsible for paying child support.
Yeah, the man should have a "buyout option": he pays his share of the cost of abortion or of bringing the pregnancy to term if the woman chooses that. If she decides to keep the baby, she pays from there and the man gives up all rights with respect to the child.
The biology of pregnancy creates an inherent double standard. Traditionally, it meant that the man always had the option of skipping town and paying nothing. Now with "deadbeat dad" laws, the shoe is on the other foot. The buyout option seems like a reasonable compromise.
83 - KYS
Bing-
You bring up a compelling point which I'm still digesting.
In the meantime, I take issue with the "cramp her lifestyle" comment. We cannot adequately address this issue until we dismiss the stigma attached to a woman’s right to choose.
A young unmarried woman who gets pregnant has much more than a 'lifestyle' issue to resolve; her finances, healthcare for herself and the child, education for herself and the child, her intellectual and emotional ability to raise a child, what her parents will say, what her church will say, her relationship with the father...
I think we can all agree that abortion for ‘convenience sake” is not what ‘pro-choice’ is all about, although it’s an easy argument against choice. There will always be those who abuse a right like this, and I abhor that kind of decision as much as you probably do. But does that mean we abolish the choice?
84 - KYS
Further, I suggest that we've all witnessed part of the problem leading up to abortions. Here's the message I've gotten so far from Greg:
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Birth control is a sin.
Abortion = BIG sin.
SO, don't have sex. But if you think you might have sex some time, go on the pill (sin). Even if you don't think you'll have sex, but you think you might have an abortion, go on the pill in case you get raped (which probably happened according to god's plan).
Fear, shame, confusion. Is this the cornerstone of our morality???
85 - Greg Schoppe
The message I'm stating has NOTHING to do with sin. I have purposefully left out any religiously based arguments (except in direct response to religious challenges), because I knew they would not be respected. I find it strange that, in such a situation, you still dismiss my statements as a commentary on sin.
1. Sin is not the issue. Murder is. Regardless of your religion, murder is a crime on one side of a cervix and a choice on the other. That is unacceptable.
2. My statements regarding birth control are evidence of a manner in which a society could exist without murder, or cramping single women's style.
3. God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape. However, the fact that one crime has been committed does not justify a second. Just as you cannot seek out and kill the rapist later, you cannot kill the child.
4. The foster system is not perfect, however, it is an option that keeps children alive. They may have hard lives due to it, but at least THEY have the CHOICE to live. Therefore, arguements on the financial viability of keeping the child are misleading. The mother is not forced to raise the child.
86 - Bennett
Those are good points Greg, and those who share your beliefs, probably share your opinions about birth control and abortion.
However, for those of us who do not believe that a zygote or month-old fetus has developed a "soul" that makes it "sacred", or any sort of consciousness or ID or mind or spirit (certainly less than lab animals or meat animals or any other life form) well, we have no problem viewing the situation with a different perspective.
You're asking a young and healthy woman to trade off having a safe and harmless termination of pregnancy for giving birth and then dealing with it, even if she was impregnated by rape.
You see abortion as murder, because of what you believe. You'll never convince me that it is murder, because I do not share your beliefs.
Tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, disease, war. We all die, thousands die every day, kids die in car accidents. Let's outlaw cars. Where is the 'mercy' in it? From a benevolent god I mean? I think it's random, and all the prayers in the world don't change a single thing.
We all have the freedom to have our own beliefs, and mine are different from yours. This leads us to view abortion differently.
Why do you think you should be able to impose your belief system-base viewpoint on me or mine? Why don't you run you life your way, and let me run mine with the freedom to make MY OWN moral judgments?
87 - Elvira Black
Greg et. al.:
Still no response to my commennt #68 re: the efficacy of the morning after pill (as opposed to the abortion pill?)
88 - KYS
Greg says:
"The message I'm stating has NOTHING to do with sin. I have purposefully left out any religiously based arguments (except in direct response to religious challenges), because I knew they would not be respected. I find it strange that, in such a situation, you still dismiss my statements as a commentary on sin."
I respectfully concede that you never identified any of your arguments as an argument against sin.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.
I would also like to say that I respect religion. But nothing is perfect, and I feel free to comment when I see inequities.
Having introduced yourself to this thread as a candidate for RC priesthood, you invite comments on that front. Your choice, not mine. Since you and I seem to differ on a religious level rather than a moral or legal level, I feel it's appropriate to identify and discuss those differences.
Finally, since you’re candidate for RC priesthood I felt compelled to tell you that I thought your approach would confuse parishioners. You are free to take or leave that input.
89 - Greg Schoppe
I believe my (future) parishioners will understand that I see a distinct difference between a sin and an act of violence against another human. both pre-marital (consentual) sex and abortion are sins. Both sins are forgivable. A mother who kills her child is not lost to God, redemption simply requires true sorrow and resolve to sin no more. That is not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is the murder perpetrated upon a fully innocent human life.
Please, to all those who wonder why I see fit to "impose my beliefs" on others, imagine a man living in Germany in 1941. This theoretical man witnesses the atrocities carried out against the Jews, under the blessing of the law and the "beliefs" of thousands. How can he keep silent without betraying all of his ethics and morals? Is it wrong for him to speak out, even when he is told that his beliefs should have no bearing on the law? Is he wrong if he acts out violently against the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity that he observes?
This is no theoretical man. It is the unexaggerated horror and sorrow I feel when I see doctors kill infants at their mother's behest. It is the disgust and outrage I feel when I see abortion portrayed time and time again as an issue of "women's rights." I am not speaking on the issue as a man of faith; because, in our society my faith holds no bearing. I speak as a man of science, having been schooled extensively in the arts of research, logic, and rhetoric; because I truely believe that the scientific facts, backed by the Ethos of the great philosophers who built our country, will sway at least some hearts. Yet, I see my arguments taken solely in the light of my religion. How is that not discrimination?
For the remainder of this thread, I plead for everyone involved to ignore my religion, and to ignore the preconceptions you may have against the pro-life party, and listen to my base argument as the argument of a man schooled in science. If it helps, imagine me as one of your own playing Devil's advocate.
Thank you for listening, and I hope this clarifies any confusion about the seeming devide between my statements and those of the Roman Catholic church.
90 - diana hartman
"God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape. However, the fact that one crime has been committed does not justify a second. Just as you cannot seek out and kill the rapist later, you cannot kill the child."
"cannot" is not the same as should not...rapists are and have been sought out and killed...
even if you don't find agreement, you'll certainly find more respect if you stick with facts and label all else your opinion...
"The foster system is not perfect, however, it is an option that keeps children alive. They may have hard lives due to it, but at least THEY have the CHOICE to live. Therefore, arguements on the financial viability of keeping the child are misleading. The mother is not forced to raise the child."
alive is not the same as living...
no child has a "choice to live" until they a) discover the option of suicide b) feel compelled to commit suicide and c) consciously choose not to...
what an interesting choice of word and application of the word "choice" for someone who isn't pro-choice...
91 - Aaman
****GREG INVOKED GODWIN's LAW**** end of comment #59
Move along, people - nothing to see here
92 - diana hartman
"God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape."
interesting...where is God in all of this?
didn't God cause humans and didn't he cause free will within the makeup of those humans?
so if a woman becomes pregnant from rape, you're saying we're dealing with the following as i understand you so far:
a) it's not God's fault that she's been raped or is pregnant; it's her fault for having not been prepared...
b) it's the rapist's fault that she was raped, but it's not the rapist's fault she's pregnant; again, it's her fault for having not been prepared...
greg, are you pulling our collective leg or are you the ghost of a man who died 100 years ago?
93 - KYS
Damn, Diana.
Once again you ferret out the deepest of issues.
I'll just keep floundering around in the kiddie pool. ;)
Nice job.
94 - Greg Schoppe
Diana, I apologize for any ambiguity seen in my previous comments. When I said "cannot" I meant that said action cannot be acceptable in an ethics based society. However, I disagree with your second point based on common usage as defined within the domain of the argument (hence the capitalization). I purposefully emphasized my usage of "choice", because it is the same usage the "pro-choice" party utilizes. A woman who would be appalled at the idea of killing her baby, and who would never even consider the matter, is considered to have a choice to do so.
Aaman, please try to argue a misuse of the analogy in my case. This is not some flippant comment about "RIAA Nazi's" or the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi". I am referring to the wholesale slaughter of a certain class of human being, purely for convenience sake.
95 - KYS
STOP with the "convienience" bullshit. It simply doesn't fly. Re-read the thread for your own personal clarity. I'm too exhausted to keep reminding you.
96 - Greg Schoppe
I never assigned fault for the pregnancy. I assigned fault for the abortion. There is a twisting of my words that you seem to have deftly accomplished.
Please, however, leave God out of this. We do not share religious beliefs, so any argument based on them will be reduced to petty bickering.
97 - Greg Schoppe
As I have stated over and over again, the number of abortions committed daily, do not support the argument of necessity.
98 - Aaman
Greg,
What are your credentials on this topic? Apart from your moral and hmumanistic beliefs, what do you bring to the table? Have you ever been raped or been pregnant?
That being said, I am a Buddhist - and if I were to apply my belief system, I would say, that even if the soul had come into the world only to be cut short, it was the karma it chose for itself. I would feel compassion for the mother, the unborn soul and hope for a better chance next time around the wheel.
99 - diana hartman
"For the remainder of this thread, I plead for everyone involved to ignore my religion, and to ignore the preconceptions you may have against the pro-life party, and listen to my base argument as the argument of a man schooled in science. If it helps, imagine me as one of your own playing Devil's advocate."
you're not the first person to run into much discourse and then attempt to define the rules by which everyone else is to engage you in an effort to better suit your argument or your argumentative style...
regardless of your religious position, you've made it abundantly clear that your position is religious and that you are pro-life...to have done this and then plead that all ignore it when questioning your reasons for being pro-life is not something one would expect from a man of your schooling...one might expect that you wouldn't have carried your religion into it at all...
should your asserted position as a man schooled in science get you in the same pickle as your asserted position as a man of religon, will you later ask that your schooling not be taken into account either?
i can only speak for myself and say sure, i'll ignore your religion...sooo, without bringing God and religion into it, why are you pro-life?
100 - Aaman
BTW, you still invoke Godwin's Law when you compare abortion of a fetus with the
wilful murder ofOops, almost slipped down the slippery slope of Godwin's Law myself.101 - Matthew T. Sussman
Aborted fetuses are little Eichmanns
102 - Greg Schoppe
Aaman, trying to deny my right to argue the point based on lack of first hand experience is a clear fallacy. I refuse to devote further time on this thread explaining the rules of rhetoric, unless there is mass public outcry.
Diana, I never argued a religious point except when directly questioned on it. I merely mentioned my afiliation with the Catholic church, and you ran with it. I believe arguing religion detracts from useful debate, as we have no common ground (this is not a retraction, only an attempt to refocus the discussion). I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science.
You question why I am pro-life? Suprisingly, it has NOTHING to do with my religion. In High School, I was brow beat constantly with the pro-choice viewpoint, and decided to look into the facts. What I found was disturbing to me. I realized that the difference between a fetus with no rights, and a baby was whether it had been delivered. Since only about 10 percent of babies are delivered on the allotted day for competion of gestation, it stands to reason that at the time of birth, babies are at vastly different levels of development. Some are delivered a month early, while others are delivered a month late. I could not reconcile the devide between burocracy and science. The burocracy, simply put, is not based on the baby's level of development. Therefore, how can it be accurate in decifering where humanity begins. It became clear to me that there is no way to measure the exact moment a fetus becomes intelligent, and as numerous studies have shown that, for some, this moment is well before birth, I could not support a law that labeled some humans as, well, fetuses.
There is only one point where a line can be drawn with absolute certainty. Only one point where that line cannot be pushed back and forth on the arbitrary whim of the ruling party of the moment. That point is conception, the moment when a cell with unique human DNA first appears.
I am unwilling to accept an arbitrary defining line that kills intelligent human beings. Therefore, I am Pro-Life
103 - diana hartman
"I never assigned fault for the pregnancy. I assigned fault for the abortion. There is a twisting of my words that you seem to have deftly accomplished."
whoa nellie...go back and read your own posts...you most certainly and specifically said the woman was responsible for getting pregnant if she wasn't prepared via the pill...
i give you your own words:
"If an individual believes that they would kill their baby if they were to become pregnant REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER OF CONCEPTION, they should be on birth control." and
"Women are absolutely equal to men in most ways, However, women are the ONLY gender that can bear children to term. Therefore, It is their resposibility to take the situation in hand. I don't believe all women should be on the pill, just those who have taken it upon themselves to be of the preempive opinion that they will abort."
if that's not saying the woman is at fault for the pregnancy, i gotta say, i question those classes you took in logic...
"A woman who would be appalled at the idea of killing her baby, and who would never even consider the matter, is considered to have a choice to do so."
she is also considered to have the choice to adopt the child out, keep the child, or go home without the child...a woman who would never even consider an abortion would probably never consider an abortion...what's your point?
104 - Greg Schoppe
my point is that the definition of CHOICE given there is the same as the definition I used in Comment #85.
and as for fault, reread those quotes...
One who will abort her child is resposible for making sure she never comes to that choice.
That is in no way the same as saying all women are responsible for getting pregnant.
I was saying that all women are responsible for the choice to abort, and if they don't take one of the other options, both preemptive and post delivery, the murder is their fault.
I will not release the burden of an offence based on previous hardships.
105 - swingingpuss
Greg, get pregnant, carry the fetus for nine uncomfortable months, have labor pains for over 24 hours, deliver without peidural and then we will talk.
106 - Greg Schoppe
Despite the thought-provoking argument on this board, I am sorry to say that I'll be asleep for the next few hours. Please, feel free to continue responding to my argument, as I would like to write a nice long post in the morning, before work. I hope we can tackle the big issue soon, and leave the edge cases for later.
anyway, I know I'll be considering all your comments, and I hope you'll mull over mine as well.
good night, and god bless,
Greg
107 - Greg Schoppe
oh, and #105, read the first paragraph of #102. That is unacceptable sexism.
108 - swingingpuss
The day a woman's rights over her body are taken away on that day the fate of the women in this country will be similar to that of the Afgani women under the Taliban regime.
How are you different from a Mullah trying to imposing his religious beliefs on the rest of the world?
109 - Aaman
greggie, your tone is unacceptable moralism
110 - diana hartman
"Diana, I never argued a religious point except when directly questioned on it. "
and when questioned, you argued a religious point...it's creative to blame someone else for your having brought religon into it (something you could just as easily have not done, questioned or not), but it's not as opaque an assertion as you might have hoped...
"I merely mentioned my afiliation with the Catholic church, and you ran with it. "
to whom do you refer when you say "you"?
and for the record, i don't run...
i did not include religion or the catholic church in any of my responses to you or anyone else, and it wasn't until you specifically referenced God ("God does not cause rape") that i questioned your comment...do you feel i'm somehow to blame for your having brought God into it? perhaps you'll explain...
"I believe arguing religion detracts from useful debate, as we have no common ground (this is not a retraction, only an attempt to refocus the discussion). "
and yet, you argued religion despite your belief that it detracts from useful debate...not a retraction? yea, you can say that but it's still a retraction...the real giveaway was saying it wasn't a retraction...
it's always interesting to see how someone uses words like "only" and "merely" in debate, especially when used in conjunction with qualifiers like "this is not a retraction"...personally, i've never seen these words used to substantiate a claim or justify a behavior but rather to distance oneself from and/or minimize the importance of a claim already made or a behavior already carried out...kinda like a retraction...
"I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science."
i hope as well...bear in mind there are no opinions in logic and science...there are facts, ideas, speculations, hypothesis, theories, etc -- but no opinions...
"You question why I am pro-life? Suprisingly, it has NOTHING to do with my religion."
and why would that be surprising?
"In High School, I was brow beat constantly with the pro-choice viewpoint, and decided to look into the facts. What I found was disturbing to me. I realized that the difference between a fetus with no rights, and a baby was whether it had been delivered. Since only about 10 percent of babies are delivered on the allotted day for competion of gestation, it stands to reason that at the time of birth, babies are at vastly different levels of development. Some are delivered a month early, while others are delivered a month late. I could not reconcile the devide between burocracy and science. The burocracy, simply put, is not based on the baby's level of development. Therefore, how can it be accurate in decifering where humanity begins. It became clear to me that there is no way to measure the exact moment a fetus becomes intelligent, and as numerous studies have shown that, for some, this moment is well before birth, I could not support a law that labeled some humans as, well, fetuses."
so when you said "I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science", you didn't mean this post, this thread, maybe not even this day?
you wandered away from science and logic and right into law and bureaucracy rather quickly...there may well be some common ground between these (logic and science, and law and bureaucracy) but that isn't where you said you wanted to be...let's assume you got lost looking for a drinking fountain and get back to what you first asserted, that we might find common ground in logic and science...
so don't support the law that labels some humans as fetuses...how about you also don't say you're all about the science and then dismiss the scientific definition and use of the word "fetuses"...
"There is only one point where a line can be drawn with absolute certainty. Only one point where that line cannot be pushed back and forth on the arbitrary whim of the ruling party of the moment. That point is conception, the moment when a cell with unique human DNA first appears.
I am unwilling to accept an arbitrary defining line that kills intelligent human beings."
that you consider conception a line is your opinion; it's not science...for all we know there's stuff happening before that...for that matter, there's reason to believe there's nothing going on but the multiplication of cells for quite a while...certainly you're entitled to your opinion and can draw all the lines your heart desires but it's not science...i would point out that logic and science is the platform you suggested, and it's the very platform you abandoned right after making the suggestion...
111 - Elvira Black
NOTE TO ALL, ESP GREG!!!!!
Waaaay back in comment #87 I again asked for Greg's reaction to my Comment #68, re: the EFFICACY OF THE MORNING AFTER PILL (not to be confused with the "abortion pill."
One of the central points of my POST was that this option might actually eliminate the need for some of this endless debate about abortion.
When first brought up, Greg, you replied by saying that it was not acceptable because sperm had still met egg before you took it.
AS I TOOK GREAT PAINS TO POINT OUT IN MY ARTICLE AND ON COMMMENT #68 (once again, that number is 68), apparently, the morning after pill does not abort anything. It is, as far as I understand it, nothing much more than the equivalent of a mega dose of regular birth control pills. And from what I've read and also cite in my post, there seems to be definitive scientific agreeement that if taken in a timely fashion, the pill will PREVENT the sperm from meeting up with egg and getting fertilized.
I've run across this reaction before in debates--rather than face a fact one doesn't like, people will just IGNORE it. Not fair.
I did not see this post as just another pro-life/pro-choice debate. Been there, done that, no?
I will point out the essential points of my post:
1. Are pro-choice advocates only concerned with the "right to life," or the quality of life that follows? If an unwanted child is subsequently tortured, raped, and murdered by her parents/stepparents, it seems that pro-choicers have decided this is a moot point. Is it really???? If you were tortured and raped, perhaps you'd pray--for the choice to DIE A QUICK DEATH. Murder is murder, inside or outside the womb. Why the fetish with pre-natal murder?
2. THERE IS NOW A PILL AVAILABLE that, unlike the "abortion pill," does not abort anything, but apparently simply makes the womb inhospitable to fertilization and implantation, even after intercourse, if taken in a timely manner.
However, apparently few know about this, and fewer still realize the difference between this and the "abortion pill," which actually does abort, if you will, albeit at an early stage.
3. AND WHY do so few people know of it? Well, interesting, isn't it? See any commercials for it? Any big news stories?
4. Shamefully, against all medical and scientific evidence, the FDA has dragged their heels on releasing this drug over the counter. Though I'd have to go back to the source, I believe a higher up (at the FDA?) actually resigned over the fact that the over the counter status was getting held up for no valid reason.
5. To my mind, this pill could theoretically end this debate, since taking it would not abort a child in the first place.
6. Which brings me to my other main argument--MANY PRO-LIFERS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS. WHY? BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T JUST ARGUE WITH WOMEN AND MEN TO JUST SAY NO TO EXTRAMARITAL SEX. That's the bone of contention that's hidden behind all this talk of murder, to my mind, esp if a viable option presents itself and everyone talks around it as if it doesn't exist. How about we talk about this and let the real underlying motivations out--i.e., sex is a sin, sex is dirty, sex is awful, except within marriage.
7. The morning after pill is not something likely to be used for routine birth control. Apparently, the side effects are simply too unpleasant.
8. Europe has been using this med, and stats on their success rate would be a useful thing to study in terms of the potential success of this method. From what I've read, I believe it is very promising.
9. Do you want to stop abortions, Greg et al, or simply have something to rail about?
10. I doubt there is ANYONE who advocates NEEDLESS abortions. Thus, in order to decrease abortions, how about this:
Help get the word out about the morning after pill and dispell the misconceptions about it (no pun intended).
Support free and low cost birth control and education to reduce the risk of pregnancy.
11. But you know what? This won't wash with a lot of folks because it's just too "EASY." Our country is still very puritanical (or at least the RR is, and they are a powerful force) and so anything that smacks of "allowing" people to have extramarital sex with impunity is unacceptable to them. You must pay the "wages of sin" and all that, right?
12, Repressing women and their right to choose is a political as well as moral/ethical issue.
13. If you are really more concerned with a zygote than with living, breathing human beings (unwed mothers, abandoned, tortured and murdered babies---i.e. MURDERED LATER, AFTER THEY ARE ACTUALLY BORN)--then I question your true motives and compassion for the "right to life."
Please, please can someone, esp Greg, address the issues I actually brought up in the post?
Other than that, I'd been asleep and woke up to find lots of activity here. I love a post that simmers and makes its own gravy while you sleep!
112 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Elvira writes,
"MANY PRO-LIFERS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS. WHY? BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T JUST ARGUE WITH WOMEN AND MEN TO JUST SAY NO TO EXTRAMARITAL
SEX. That's the bone of contention that's hidden behind all this talk of murder, to my mind, esp if a viable option presents itself and everyone talks around it as if it doesn't exist. How about we talk about this and let the real underlying motivations out--i.e., sex is a sin, sex is dirty, sex is awful, except within marriage."
I guess, Elvira, that we are back to the question I laid out a long time ago in comment #21.
"Does my 16 year old have the right to screw anyone in a skirt who'll voluntarily spread her legs for him? For me. that is the thrust of the issue. For I am his father and teacher."
The laws of the Torah and the Seven Commandments of Noah restrict sexual activity. The laws of the Torah apply to Jews, the Seven Commandments of Noah to the rest of humankind - ALL of it.
So, the question is does society teach a moral code or not?
The sexual revolution of our youth threw out the moral code. But when the obnoxious social costs of relatively unrestricted sex - the most obvious one being abortion - started hitting the wallet, society got interested - in its wallet.
Hence the rule I cited above at comment #21:
"Your society (and mine) seems to have answered the question posed this way. Screw all you want but don't crowd up my welfare rolls or hospitals or cost me money."
You complain that a drug that would hide the most obvious and obnoxious social cost of unrestricted sex is being withheld - at least from the OTC market in your country.
Put simply, you like the consequences of having thrown out the idea that society is responsible for teaching a moral code.
I don't. Maybe it's because I have kids to raise and would appreciate society as a back-up rather than an enemy in teaching my kids to follow a humane moral code.
I want my sons to behave like men - your society (which has a tremendous and evil influence on mine) wants them to behave like rutting animals in a barnyard.
You don't believe me? Check out a magazine, the spam on your e-mails, the ads even here. Watch TV for an hour or two. Check out the movies.
I agree with you, Elvira. This is not about abortion - it's about morality - or the lack of it.
Like I said, ponder the consequences.
113 - Elvira Black
Ruvy, thank you so much for addressing my points. Here's my view:
Yes, the world is full of evil and vice. But my main concern here is the same as the pro-lifers (supposed) main concern: preventing murder (and needless misery to boot).
Neither you nor I can prevent the world from having sex outside of wedlock.
What I think can be prevented is murder--both my the pro-lifer's definition and by my definition--by preventing pregnancy and unwanted births.
I strongly feel that even if you think that people who have sex outside of marriage are sinning, I don't think an innocent child (or even foetus, if that's your belief) should have to pay the price needlessly.
As I said, the morning after pill is just an extension of what's already available.
If people truly care about the slaughter of innocent lives, I think this is a valid point to discuss.
After my parents died, and before I went off to college, I lived with my aunt and uncle, who are Orthodox. As a result, I have enormous respect for my heritage--although, as with all fundamentalist beliefs, some (only some) Orthodox seem to dismiss non-Jews as "inferior" or not to be seen as quite as good. But most I've met are incredibly wonderful. I admire their love of family, their devotion to their children and their education, and their ethical codes.
Nevertheless--I still feel that although your children have been taught ethics and morals by you (would that more parents would follow your example) you yourself admitted that you also saw fit to talk to them about birth control. And I'm sure you realize that even though you have taught by example, it is ultimately their choice as to what they choose to follow themselves. It is just much much more likely that they will follow the "good path" because of your teachings and deeds.
That, too, is something to consider. But it still wont' make this major problem, which affects millions, just go away.
I am against murder, torture, and rape of innocent children--certainly after conception. The debate over abortion is a valid one, and I am not G-d and cannot decide what consitutes life at what juncture. I would prefer that it not have to come to that point wherever possible.
Way too many parents, I suspect, simply avoid any discussion of sexuality, birth control, or even ethics and morals. They let their children be guided, as you imply, but the influences of an often quite evil world.
It's sad that it is so often up to outside agencies to try to provide some of this essential information to young people--but only parents can instil the moral implications of a child's choices--hopefully without just screaming blind rhetoric. I am quite certain that is not the way you do things, in any event.
Again, thank you Ruvy, as always, for your wise and thoughtful comments.
114 - Elvira Black
A BIG P.S.:
A few factors compelled me to write this post, including several cases of child abuse and worse in the past few days. To get some idea of what I'm referring to, PLEASE check out this short piece from today's New York Times.
115 - Elvira Black
And PLEASE, PLEASE view this article from today's New York Post.
This is why I feel so very strongly that we must make birth control accessible to all. It may not prevent all tragedies like this one, but I suspect it will certainly help. Our social agencies are not equipped to handle the enormous number of cases of abuse, and those who continue to have baby after baby without having the wherewithal to care for them are endangering the society and it's children even more.
A tragic vicious circle-how can those who survive such horrors ever hope to have a normal adult life, or be able to care for their own children properly in turn? (Not to imply that it can't be done, but what are the odds?) Over and over, the cycle of abuse is perpetuated from generation to generation as people continue to have babies they cannot and/or will not properly care for.
If you care about the "right to life," please don't tell me that a story like this one from the Post doesn't break your heart and make you mad as hell to boot.
116 - Elvira Black
Sorry...serves me right for not hitting preview first.
Here's the NY Post article.
117 - Greg Schoppe
1. Diana, it is true that I argued religion when it was brought up. I thought it would be nice to clarify the religious position. However, it has eaten the possibility of real discussion. We need to move on, or we'll get nowhere.
if you'll notice i did not "wander away from science", i stated how american law is not based on simple scientific facts. And my use of the term fetus was prefaced with a qualifier that suggested I was not using the scientific term, but the common usage.
And making conception a line based on the creation of new DNA is precisely scientific. It is the clearest line science can draw.
Please, can you argue the issues rather than literary semantics? this is wasting time.
2. Elvira, I stated the facts regarding the "morning after pill"
The morning after pill in no way stops fertilization. It simply causes a fertilized egg to be flushed out like an unfertilized one. It allows another arbitrary line to be drawn. I am therefore not ok with it.
I explained this in an earlier comment. I in no way ignored it for my own position
And about the cases of torture, these are isolated incidents. Are kids sometimes made to suffer at their parents' hands? yes Will abortion stop this? seems it hasn't yet. can we allow 4,000 murders a day, based on a handful of cases a year in which children are mistreated? no.
1 in 5 people are supposedly abused in their lifetimes. Since the suicide rates of adults are not 1 in 5, we must assume that most of the people abused would rather live than die. Arguing that a child can be killed because its future quality of life would suck doesn't take into account that most people would rather live, even in a bad circumstance, than not. Suicide rates back this up.
according to the CDC, 83 people commit suicide daily. 4000 abotrions are committed daily. Therefore, only a tiny percentage of those aborted would have committed suicide, had they lived.
Please, don't call abortion ethical for the child. Let the child live, and decide for himself if his life is acceptable.
118 - Elvira Black
Greg:
Thank you for responding.
Since I need to do some more reading myself, it may be possible that the morning after pill would not fit your criteria as far as acceptibility, although it does for many others.
However:
Cases of abuse are not isolated incidents or a handful of cases by any means. I think if one is going to be compassionate about children, it seems only fair to care also for the ones who have already been born.
Again, in the interests of logic rather than rhetoric, if one truly wants to stem the tide of abortion, then birth control education and dissemenation is crucial. Yes, you may consider it a sin, but it is the "sin smart" sin. Plus, you also mentioned that girls in the foster care? system are put on the pill? and you seemed to have no problem with people taking the pill if it would prevent a terminated conception, even including rape.
Also it is more than just the fact that a given child is abused or killed. This cycle is often passed on from generation to generation. Would it not be better to ensure that those who would prefer not to have yet another child they cannot afford or care for properly be given this option, for free if necessary, to stem these terrible tragedies AS WELL as reduce the number of abortions?
I would like a link, if you have it, to a non-partisan source backing up your 4000 abortions a day.
Moreover, although you consider it heinous murder to abort even a zygote, there are many others who would consider this acceptable compared with the alternative of having a child brought to term who is unloved, raped, tortured, abused, and killed later on. Would you ever wish to witness such cruelty? Can you really turn a blind eye and dismiss this so cavelierly? Does not every single life count for something? Didn't Jesus teach compassion and love for all children? Where is the caring behind the overheated debate?
Abused children cannot decide for themselves about much of anything. Are you saying this is ok? Not to mention, as I did, that the cycle of unwanted pregnancies and abuse often continue for generations, ad infinitum. Is this really really ok with you, esp. if you may become a priest who follows Christ's teachings?
119 - Greg Schoppe
It does not help the child to kill it before it is born. All lives are hard, but it is true that some people's sitations are absolutely horrifying. I in no way condone torture, rape, abuse, or murder. However, not allowing the individual who is suffering to make their own decision about the worth of their own life is an even more heinous crime.
Just as I will not go to the homes of abusers and kill the abused as an act of mercy, I will not kill the child, even if future abuse is a certainty. The hardships we endure in life, even those that are brought upon us by others, do not intrinsically make our lives forfeit. That must be the choice of the individual being abused. Not even a mother can make that decision.
I sincerely hope that abusers are taken away from their victims and given treatment, but I cannot allow their (possible future) abuse to justify murder.
120 - diana hartman
"1. Diana, it is true that I argued religion when it was brought up. I thought it would be nice to clarify the religious position. However, it has eaten the possibility of real discussion. We need to move on, or we'll get nowhere."
clarifying the religious issue is to have addressed the religious issue...clarifying the religious issue is not, as you've asserted, moving away from it...
"if you'll notice i did not "wander away from science", i stated how american law is not based on simple scientific facts."
i did not notice a lack of wandering on your part...with what sentence did you state that american law is not based on simple scientific facts? and what does american law have to do with logic and science?
"And my use of the term fetus was prefaced with a qualifier that suggested I was not using the scientific term, but the common usage."
prefacing with a qualifier is an attempt to redefine the terms...the definition of the term "fetus" isn't subjective...any other use of the term is an opinion, not science...
"And making conception a line based on the creation of new DNA is precisely scientific. It is the clearest line science can draw."
science has not drawn a clear line...you've done so with opinion and have used part of the scientific community to support your opinion...the scientific definition of conception depends on the scientist to whom you refer...it is argued by some that conception takes place upon fertilisation and by others that it takes place upon implantation...before implantation, the fused egg and sperm are just that and nothing else, which is to say that without implantation, discard of the fused egg and sperm would naturally occur...
whether one defines conception as the point of fertilization or implantation, there is still the question of whether it is murder vs termination...a sapling is not a tree, a rain cloud with enough water to fill a pond is not itself a pond, and a group of cells without that which is necessary to survive independent of the uterus is not a human being but still rather a potential human being...there is a difference between halting the process by which a group of cells may eventually develop into what we define as a human being and doing away with a human being...
"Please, can you argue the issues rather than literary semantics? this is wasting time."
i'll do my best...
121 - JR
Greg Schoppe: in the "dandruff" argument, dandruff does not have UNIQUE DNA. it has the DNA of the individual who produces it. Dandruff is also dead cells. a fertilized egg has its own HUMAN DNA that is not the DNA of either parent.
When a cell divides, it first replicates it's entire set of DNA so that each of the daughter cells gets a complete copy of the genome. While remarkably accurate, this process is not perfect; a daughter cell can sometimes inherit a slightly changed version of the genome. Furthermore, cells can be exposed to mutagenic chemicals or radiation (particularly in skin cells) that can change the DNA. When these changes are not caught by error correction mechanisms, they are passed on to succeeding generations of cells. Such changes can happen any time in the development of a human; if they happen earlier, the effected cell populations can include entire organs. Thus, portions of your body may have different unique sets of DNA.
In the majority of cases, these DNA changes have no effect on the functioning of the cells. In the majority of cases where the change is expressed, the cell malfunctions and dies or is destroyed by the body. In some cases, the changes are such that the cells can bypass normal restrictions on their mortality.
This is called cancer.
So your next tumor will have its own unique DNA. Will you callously pay a doctor to rip that tumor screaming from your body and starve it of the nourishment it needs to live? Or will you have the intellectual honesty to submit to God's will, as expressed by His creation of that tumor with its unique DNA?
122 - Anthony Grande
"It infuriates me to read about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs." from the post
And you call people like me "anti-choice"?
"I'd love to see all these blowhards who talk about the "sanctity of life" open their door one day and see that someone has dumped all the unwanted crack babies and incest victims in the neighborhood on their doorstep." from the post
I believe in the legal option of abortion for incest babies but why crack babies? I have seen crack babies live long enjoyable lives.
You are going to call me a "religious psycho" for this but:
I would like to see all you baby killers go to hell and have to babysit the millions and billions of aborted babies.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
123 - Anthony Grande
P.S. why do you situate pro-lifers with parents who torture, starve and murder their children?
That comparison is extremely ironic.
124 - Elvira Black
Greg:
I don't have any more "fight" in me. I just find this all very, very sad. As I said, aside from the issue of abortion, I would at least hope that pro-life and pro-choice individuals could perhaps find a common ground when it comes to routine birth control.
Diana:
You go! As always.
JR:
Good one
Anthony:
Methinks you are nothing but a sneaky troll. Where's your URL? You are simply trying to incite a very nasty little flamefest, and I'm not biting. If someone else prefers to take up the gauntlet, all well and good, but remember that you're dealing with a faceless, URL-less coward.
125 - Anthony Grande
Oh, sorry. Here is my URL. I was just too lazy to post it last earlier.