No more circumcision in SF?

[colton]

Yes, she left the door unlocked, whether accidentally or deliberately. If you leave a door unlocked, youare making it more accessible to intruders.

If you want to make it more than that, you need to say the woman has more knowledge of some offspring that does not yet exist than of vargrants that actually exist, but she does not know personally.

I don't quite follow the last sentence. However, leaving the door unlocked is still a horrible analogy. The fetus is there AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE MOTHER'S ACTIONS. I don't know how you can argue that, or why you are even trying.

The fetus did not decide to be conceived. The mother decided to conceive the fetus... or at least engage in risky enough behavior that conception was an entirely foreseeable outcome.

 

[One Brow]

I don't quite follow the last sentence. However, leaving the door unlocked is still a horrible analogy. The fetus is there AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE MOTHER'S ACTIONS. I don't know how you can argue that, or why you are even trying.

I wouldn't. As Ihave made clear, from what I can tell the real motives of most of the anti-abortion crowd is the control of the behaviors of women.

The fetus did not decide to be conceived. The mother decided to conceive the fetus... or at least engage in risky enough behavior that conception was an entirely foreseeable outcome.

Why, that's completely different from my analogy, where leaving the house unlocked is risky enough behavior that a vagrant might walk into it, and that is a foreseeable outcome. I'm sure you will now explain that difference to me.

 

[colton]

I wouldn't. As Ihave made clear, from what I can tell the real motives of most of the anti-abortion crowd is the control of the behaviors of women.

Well, I think you're completely wrong about that. I can't speak for others, but as I explained above the overriding concern for me is protecting those who cannot protect themselves--the helpless and innocent fetuses, which even though they may not rise to the level of "personhood", still deserve some protection.

Tell you what--don't judge my motives, and I won't judge yours.

(Yes, I know you were talking about the anti-abortion crowd in general,(*) but your comments were specifically directed at me.)

Why, that's completely different from my analogy, where leaving the house unlocked is risky enough behavior that a vagrant might walk into it, and that is a foreseeable outcome. I'm sure you will now explain that difference to me.

The difference is that in your analogy the prime motivator is the vagrant. That is, he deliberately walks into the house. But in the real situation, the fetus has NO CHOICE about being conceived.

So, a better analogy might be something with less freedom of choice than a vagrant. Let's say, a stray kitten. The women sets up a one-way door door going into the room, then puts out some cat food which may or may not attract a stray kitten through the door. If by chance a kitten now wanders in, does the woman have some obligation to care for the kitten? Or should she be free to kill it if she decides she doesn't want to care for it at this point?


(*) The irony here is that I've had discussions with pro-lifers who are just as against my views as you are, because I'm not 100% completely against all abortions.

 

[One Brow]

Tell you what--don't judge my motives, and I won't judge yours.

We can lie to ourselves about our motives. I don't judge yours, but I feel free to note theinferences to be drawn from not only your base positions, but also the exceptions, and the commonality of those exceptions.

The difference is that in your analogy the prime motivator is the vagrant. That is, he deliberately walks into the house.

At no point do I claim the vagrant is sane nor in control of his actions. If the vagrant is insane, or otherwise in some sort of condition where he can't control his actions, does that make a difference? Is the homeowner now required to keep him in the house? If making a conscious choice is not relevant, you shouldn't bring it up.

So, a better analogy might be something with less freedom of choice than a vagrant. Let's say, a stray kitten. The women sets up a one-way door door going into the room, then puts out some cat food which may or may not attract a stray kitten through the door. If by chance a kitten now wanders in, does the woman have some obligation to care for the kitten? Or should she be free to kill it if she decides she doesn't want to care for it at this point?

My position would be that she always has the option to remove the kitten from her house, even if the kitten has no other way to live. YOu think she has to keep the kitten alive?

(*) The irony here is that I've had discussions with pro-lifers who are just as against my views as you are, because I'm not 100% completely against all abortions.

I fully recognize there are a huge number of subtle differences. You often can learn more arguing with people you 90% agree with than those you 90% disagree with.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well, I think you're completely wrong about that. I can't speak for others, but as I explained above the overriding concern for me is protecting those who cannot protect themselves--the helpless and innocent fetuses, which even though they may not rise to the level of "personhood", still deserve some protection.

Tell you what--don't judge my motives, and I won't judge yours.

(Yes, I know you were talking about the anti-abortion crowd in general,(*) but your comments were specifically directed at me.)



The difference is that in your analogy the prime motivator is the vagrant. That is, he deliberately walks into the house. But in the real situation, the fetus has NO CHOICE about being conceived.

So, a better analogy might be something with less freedom of choice than a vagrant. Let's say, a stray kitten. The women sets up a one-way door door going into the room, then puts out some cat food which may or may not attract a stray kitten through the door. If by chance a kitten now wanders in, does the woman have some obligation to care for the kitten? Or should she be free to kill it if she decides she doesn't want to care for it at this point?


(*) The irony here is that I've had discussions with pro-lifers who are just as against my views as you are, because I'm not 100% completely against all abortions.

This.

Another way of expanding on that analogy would be to replace "kitten" with "very small child" who also does not really know enough to make a choice in the matter, but is enticed to enter. Is it ok to kill the small child at that point to get it out of there?

Also Colton, regarding your irony comment, this is the issue when someone who has more moderate views has a discussion with someone who is more strongly left or right wing. The wingers have a hard time seeing anything but the extremes. It takes a very open mind to see and admit that there may be a middle ground. Most often they view someone who tries to find a middle ground, or believes it is there, as weak-minded or stupid or easily swayed. They find it hard to believe that you can have values and valid ideas if they do not espouse a complete and total acceptance of one side of the issue. Tough discussions to have.

 

[One Brow]

Another way of expanding on that analogy would be to replace "kitten" with "very small child" who also does not really know enough to make a choice in the matter, but is enticed to enter. Is it ok to kill the small child at that point to get it out of there?

You mean, it was OK to kill the vagrant? I certianly never said that (although it would not surprise me if many people here supported it). The question is, is the homeowner obligated to keep and care for the baby, or can she have it removed and not care for it?

Also Colton, regarding your irony comment, this is the issue when someone who has more moderate views has a discussion with someone who is more strongly left or right wing. The wingers have a hard time seeing anything but the extremes. It takes a very open mind to see and admit that there may be a middle ground. Most often they view someone who tries to find a middle ground, or believes it is there, as weak-minded or stupid or easily swayed. They find it hard to believe that you can have values and valid ideas if they do not espouse a complete and total acceptance of one side of the issue. Tough discussions to have.

Very true.

 

[sirkickyass]

I disagree. Rape exceptions are the natural result of the part of the real agenda: control over the sexual behavior of women. Women can't control being raped, therefore they shouldn't be forced to live with the result. It's the most intellectually honest part of the anti-abortion movement.

The intellectual bankruptcy is the pretense that this is founded on some notion of personhood for the fetus. 1) There is no such personhood granted in the books of most religious traditons, personhood begins at first breath. 2) No other type of person has a right to use the body of second party against their will.

Co-sign as a modification to my stance on the rape exception. I was describing the second half only without the context fo the first.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm really trying hard to follow everything in this thread, but damn, you guys use a lot of big words.

 

[One Brow]

I'm really trying hard to follow everything in this thread, but damn, you guys use a lot of big words.

Feel free to PM me over anything I said that was confusing.

 

[TroutBum]

Feel free to PM me over anything I said that was confusing.

...

 

[PearlWatson]

I disagree. Rape exceptions are the natural result of the part of the real agenda: control over the sexual behavior of women. Women can't control being raped, therefore they shouldn't be forced to live with the result. It's the most intellectually honest part of the anti-abortion movement.

The intellectual bankruptcy is the pretense that this is founded on some notion of personhood for the fetus. 1) There is no such personhood granted in the books of most religious traditons, personhood begins at first breath. 2) No other type of person has a right to use the body of second party against their will.

Yes, the anti-abortion crowd is just out to ruin your ability to have irresponsible casual sex with teenagers and young women. If their sexual behavior didn't effect another life I wouldn't care whether they wanted to act like free whores. I came across a good compromise on the issue a few years back. If you are so casual with your creative powers, then during your first and only allowed elective abortion you lose your ability to have children. Snip snip and the sperm donor too. We don't want the possibility of future spawn. It would be even better if the option was offered in place of pills and condoms before it came down to taking another life.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, the anti-abortion crowd is just out to ruin your ability to have irresponsible casual sex with teenagers and young women.

Yup.

If their sexual behavior didn't effect another life I wouldn't care whether they wanted to act like free whores.

Your judgments drip like venom from your mouth. Nice to see those true colors shine through.