Dustdevil Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 That’s why strong pro-life views combined with strong pro-eroticism views perplex me. It would be like hearing someone champion a reckless approach to emergency medical services while demanding a strict approach to their outcome. First, let me apologise for missing your last post, a couple days ago. I didn't see it until now, so I'm glad you bumped it. It is very interesting to see this analogy made! And I am excited to see the beliefs of my fellow Athiestic Jew (seems more correct than "Jewish Athiest") receive prominent attention. To me, sexuality is not about procreation. It is about expressing the relationship between my partner and I. Conception is merely an occasional result of that relationship. The product of conception is not even a consideration until it happens. That is not to say that preventing that conception when not desired is not a consideration. But when the conception does enter the picture, it then becomes the prime concern. Conversely, in medical practice, the patient is always in the equation, so s/he is always the prime concern. I believe that is the crux of the philosophical dichotomy that you exploring. There will always eventually be patients. There will not always eventually be a baby, as I have proven for half a century. EMS exists for the patients. However we, as individuals, exist for ourselves. Those who never have a baby have no need to take babies into consideration in the execution of their daily lives. EMS is a group of individuals gathered for a specific purpose. Individuals outside of that group, again, choose for themselves what their "special purpose" is ("The Jerk" reference). If one chooses procreation as their special purpose, then obviously, that shall become their primary concern. But one can choose to share intimacy with a partner without getting bogged down in maternal and paternal concerns, because it is not their purpose. Tying this back to the original issue, once conception occurs, it is no longer simply a purpose or issue. It is another individual, whose purpose is equally important to those of the conceptors. Yes, I just made that word up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Thank you, Dust, for taking up the query. The product of conception is not even a consideration until it happens. That is not to say that preventing that conception when not desired is not a consideration. But when the conception does enter the picture, it then becomes the prime concern. So do I understand correctly that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood? And, since pregnancy can result from rape, that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood irrespective of the consent of the fertile agent? "Hi, Honey! How was your day?' "Terrible! I was raped!" "Well, then! Guess we'd better set another place at the table!" one can choose to share intimacy with a partner without getting bogged down in maternal and paternal concerns And shouldn't that be "with the hope/wish/unguaranteed preference of not getting bogged down in maternal and parental concerns"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 So do I understand correctly that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood? And, since pregnancy can result from rape, that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood irrespective of the consent of the fertile agent? Exactly. Again, the bottom line is, shyte happens. Deal with it. Being raped does not entitle you to murder a third person anymore than being injured in a wreck entitles you to start torching other people's cars. And shouldn't that be "with the hope/wish/unguaranteed preference of not getting bogged down in maternal and parental concerns"? Right. One should certainly give serious consideration to the possible results of his or her actions, and whether one is prepared to deal with those consequences. But to spend a significant part of your life obsessing about it when it quite possibly may never happen is an unreasonable stressor that most people do not need in their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Deal with it. Being raped does not entitle you to murder a third person anymore than being injured in a wreck entitles you to start torching other people's cars. Dust sticking to his guns! I like it! So as a matter of law, abortion indistinguishable from homicide? Every mother will have to be ready prove in a court of law that her miscarriage was spontaneous, or suffer the same penalties as that to which any killer is sentenced? I'm trying to envision what enforcement, including the emotional effect on the mother of the State's collecting evidence, would look like in practice. to spend a significant part of your life obsessing about it when it quite possibly may never happen is an unreasonable stressor that most people do not need in their life. Even under ideal conditions, rearing offspring is known to impose a set of unreasonable stressors that cannot be relieved merely by changing one's attitude! That might be worth weighing against the value of a regrettably placed orgasm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Ok, here's my perspective and my story. About a year or so ago my wife and I found out we were pregnant, (well she was at least). All was well in the pregnancy until about week 8 when the docs told us there was a small hemmorhage in the placenta but the pregnancy should go on without problems. At week 17 my wife said something had changed. We went to the doc's office and the baby had passed away some time within the past 2 days. We induced labor the following day. We delivered a 17 week gestation stillborn little boy. He had fingers, he had toes, a tongue, eyes, mouth, nose, big head and a little penis(had to put that in) This was in all realities is a human being. But some say he wasn't(those on the pro-abortion lobby). One of the darkest times in my life, one that I hope never to go through again. If you go aborting babies like this one then you are definately aborting human beings and killing them. There is no way around it. Just because the baby cannot survive out of the womb does not make it a non-entity. My views are clear, my views are my own yet they are what they are. We adopted our son and thank God that the birth mother did not choose abortion. A very very close friend of mine summed abortion up in a couple of sentences and I know that he would not have a issue with me relaying what he says. He says it this way. Abortion is killing a human being. When he goes in front of God and asks him why there is no cure for cancer God may say "There was a cure for cancer, but that person who would have developed the cure for cancer was aborted on January 23, 2006" Then he asks "Why was there no cure for MS or parkinsons, and is told the same thing, There was going to be but she was aborted on March 18, 1976" I know that this devolves this argument but what if he's right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 So as a matter of law, abortion indistinguishable from homicide? Obviously, not as a matter of law. However yes, as a matter of moral ethics, and ideally as a matter of law. Every mother will have to be ready prove in a court of law that her miscarriage was spontaneous, or suffer the same penalties as that to which any killer is sentenced? I'm trying to envision what enforcement, including the emotional effect on the mother of the State's collecting evidence, would look like in practice. Just like with every other murder, there has to be some reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. We don't interrogate people every time someone drops dead. We wouldn't be interrogating mothers every time they miscarry either. But when abortion is outlawed, women will begin to risk serious physical consequences to themselves when they attempt to kill a baby on their own, without medical intervention, as it should be. Darwin will deal with many of them. That in itself will provide a powerful deterrent. Even under ideal conditions, rearing offspring is known to impose a set of unreasonable stressors that cannot be relieved merely by changing one's attitude! That might be worth weighing against the value of a regrettably placed orgasm... Sure. I wouldn't suggest that one need not consider the consequences of one's actions, and hedge your bets against undesirable outcomes (no pun intended). Just saying that obsessing over it is not likely to be productive or healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmeaner Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Still find it amazing that so few here have shown an interest in this. I don't. Any internet forum: "Would you like to discuss abortion?" = Joshua(WOPR): "Would you like to play a game?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 "Would you like to play a game?" "Global Thermonuclear War" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Thanks again, Dust, for your responses. Just to be I'm sure I'm following you, are you saying that [abortion {should be} indistinguishable from homicide] ideally as a matter of law. - where "ideally" means you would support legislation that codifies sanctions against abortion that are on par with sanctions against homicide? Just like with every other murder, there has to be some reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. We don't interrogate people every time someone drops dead. We wouldn't be interrogating mothers every time they miscarry either. But when abortion is outlawed, women will begin to risk serious physical consequences to themselves when they attempt to kill a baby on their own, without medical intervention, as it should be. Darwin will deal with many of them. That in itself will provide a powerful deterrent. I might have a response to this later. Meanwhile: I wouldn't suggest that one need not consider the consequences of one's actions, and hedge your bets against undesirable outcomes (no pun intended). Just saying that obsessing over it is not likely to be productive or healthy. I think with regard to the goal of avoiding obsessing, you're aligned with the majority of prolife sentiment, only that their method of avoiding obsession varies from yours. Because most people don't claim to be as adaptable to, say, unexpectedly becoming a parent as you say you are (and I have no reason to doubt what you say), they remove themselves from situations most likely to produce what they're not prepared to handle. That is, if each shot of playing "Russian Roulette" were accompanied by orgasm, it might be a more popular game; since it's not, playing with guns is rare. So far as I know, riding on the tops of trains or subways - I forget the name for this pastime - is practiced only by risk-seeking poor and/or emotionally neglected kids who feel immortal and/or that they have no future worth protecting. Most of us wear seatbelts, look both ways before we cross, and lock our doors at night. And precisely because "obsessing ... is not likely to be productive or healthy," we train our kids to practice hygiene until the practices are second nature. For example, I don't obsess about dental care, I just practice it because I can at will call up a sufficiently vivid image of the consequences of its neglect. I think many prolifers would advise the same about sexual continence in situations where children are not immediately welcome. That is, because habit is a powerful motivator, many prolifers would counsel the habit of sexual abstinence whenever offspring are unwelcome. Which takes me back to my original observation about bawdy jokes, which don't, at least not obviously, reflect or conduce to chastity. You've explained that your adaptability to acquiring children licenses sexual activity, which I think I've understood to mean an alternative to obsessive continence. Though to tell you the truth, the people I know who practice continence seem less sex-obsessed than those who don't, like people for whom booze or crack or sweets are, by choice,just not part of their diet - and yes I'm aware of the differences among these. I wish the cultural environment made it easier for all who would refrain from certain pleasures; not everyone has the strength of will you have. Now, just as people define, say, non-pathological oral hygiene variously - some treat sugar like poison, while for others life without the daily pound of chocolate is not worth living - so there is a range of risk that individuals are willing to assume for their goals. The question is over which principles are more conducive to unhealthy obsessing - the person who who has made eating sweets, or drinking alcohol, or whatever risk-entailing behavior might appear attractive - not an option, or the one for whom indulging or abstaining requires continual choosing, monitoring, weighing of benefit vs. risk. I have several friends who are single mothers, whose partners left them just before or after they discovered they were pregnant. My impression is that they have - to put it mildly - mixed feelings about that. More of my acquaintances than I probably realize have terminated their pregnancies. Those I've spoken to about it have reported mixed feelings about that too. The question seems to be whether abstinence deprives individuals of an experience that make the risk of parenthood worthwhile. Is intercourse intended to circumvent conceiving more akin to Russian Roulette (plus directly involving the welfare of third parties) or to sampling the occasional bonbon? Of course, many prolifers counsel chastity for reasons other than prudential; they say it's more wholesome psychologically, spiritually, socially, and even cognitively, and safer physically. Anyway, back to the question of the legal status of the fetus, would you have its "unalienable rights" encompass more than the right to life? For example, would you approve the following legislation? Here's the link to my source from which I copied the summary below http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/20/wow-19/ and here's the link to the proposed law: http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2009...-some-concerns/ >A bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature would mandate drug and alcohol testing for any pregnant woman who meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) No prenatal care; (2) Late prenatal care after twenty-four (24) weeks gestation; (3) Incomplete prenatal care; (4) Abruptio placentae; (5) Intrauterine fetal death; (6) Preterm labor of no obvious cause; (7) Intrauterine growth retardation of no obvious cause; (8) Previously known alcohol or drug abuse; or (9) Unexplained congenital anomalies. Any woman who tests positive for alcohol or drugs would then be referred to a mandatory treatment program. If she refuses to be tested, tests positive and refuses treatment, or misses two appointments at treatment, she gets referred to child protective services.< Do we like them apples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmeaner Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 "Global Thermonuclear War" Would probably be safer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts