mmboost

iTrader: (2)

If you cannot read this as a response to poor thinking in the subject's question, then don't bother answering. If you read this and think I am trying to convince you to be agaisnt abortion, don't bother answering.

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

I'm sure we've all seen this bumper sticker. If not, you know now that it exists. Now this is a rallying cry which basically tries to say, "You want to force me to have this child and care for it, but you don't trust me to choose whether or not to have an abortion?"

The grossly missing (and therefore misleading) problem I find with this complaint of a bumper sticker is that it couples multiple events in a though with the underlying assumption that they exist in their own vacuums. Let's list what they are:

Vaccum #1 - Irresponsible sexuality. Sure, sometimes mistakes happen, with anyone, married, single but monogamous, or with multiple partners. But we all know the best chance to keep from being pregnant and getting sexually transmissitted diseases is to have one partner for life. Now don't get your whiny asses bent out of shape about how this is also the policy of the religious people throughout the majority of world religions. Its just undeniable fact: STDs would be virtually, like 99.99%, wiped out if everyone had only had one partner for a few generations. Similarly this goes for unwated pregnancies, its not as drastic as 99.99%, but you can easily find statistics which show that people who are monogamous with a spouse have far less unwanted conceptions. The reason for this is the level of committment and trust between two such partners: they take stronger responsibility because the committment demands it (or, at least, it should - otherwise, why committ?)

Vaccum #2 - abortion. People who are for abortion rights speak of it as though it is completely unrelated to sex. Here's a newsflash for you: Pregancies usually come from putting a ***** into a vagina, wiggling around and eventualy depositing sperm. There's not just some weak connection. This is a direct connection. This process, done in a consensual, enjoyable way probabaly accounts for well over 99.9999999% of vaginal sperm deposits in the timespan of recorded history of humankind. (The other part of the 100% is noncensual sex [rape], or invitro, etc).

Irresponsiblity, which also leads to disease and even death these days, is the prime factor behind a perceived need for abortion. A lack of responsibility regarding when and how to manage one's sex life and a lack of responsibility on how to respond to the results of an irresponsible sex life. Abortion should be a bandage for irresopnsibility? What happened to just acting responsibly in the first place? Do you really believe without dropping your pants at the drop of a hat you will die? That I don't want people to have abortions has nothing to do with their ability to rear a child. I wouldn't want them to rear a child because they don't take responsibility for their own action in the first place!

Not to mention... who's to decide when a cell grouping is human life and when its just some cells? That's a question on which I'd rather not guess about the answer.

jason

psoper

The thing I don't understand is how a free society could ever reasonable enforce a total ban on abortion? would everyone who buys a pregnancy test have to register their results so authorities would know who is expecting?

And what about mis-carriges, each one would need to be investigated to be sure it wasn't an abortion.

Seems far more sensible to provide the option of a medical procedure, than force women who might be in dire situations to resort to dangerous and desperate measures, while at the same time subjecting those suffering the heartbreak of a lost child due to natural occurance to authoritarian questioning and harassment.

And I really don't think any male on the planet has any right tell any woman what she can or can't do to her body or any being that is dependant on her body for its survival, those decisions should be between her consiounce (-1sp) and whatever greater power she subscribes to.

And all your pontificating about irresponsible sexual behavior still fails to address the need for someone to take care of children born to those either unable or unwilling to provide the care that children need.

Abortions happen for a number of reasons, and I have to believe that in many cases it is not simply a matter of convenience, its a damn difficult life decision that I am grateful I'll never have to make, and I'm sure in many cases it is a last resort.

I'm not saying your points are invalid, only that your conclusion is not supported by your contentions, and the implications of enforcing such draconian laws would be a complete departure from anything like the concept of a free society.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

You think abortion is the best thing since sliced bread? I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Read my post again.

The only salient and related point you made is the one I quoted. My answer is, thousands of people want to adopt - thousands of people who want to be responsible for children cannot conceive children. Why not take irresponsible behavior and turn it around for good, instead of continuing to be irresponsible and selfcentered?

Also this isn't pontification. I'm not laying out a moral argument or moral judgement. This is showing how a poorly thoughout argument on a bumper sticker is just that, poorly thought out. This is showing how someone stupidly though it would be stimulating to separate out the issue of sexuality and the issue of abortion. You cannot separate them out because the perceived need for abortion is a direct result irresponsible sexuality.

...and no one forces anyone to be irresponsible with their sexuality. That would be antithetical to the term "responsibility".


jason

constellation

iTrader: (1)

It's a bumper sticker - not the goddamned constitution.
Boy, you sure dissected the poor logic of that BUMPER STICKER. Congrats. Here's some grape juice.

I'm not going to try and argue with you, since you reply to any defense of abortion with ---- >

Yay, fun.
Abortion ain't my business, and i'm fully aware that puttin my pee pee in someone has it's risks - however, you can't use a bumpersticker as your staging area for an all out attack on prochoicealism. It holds up about as well as my vocabulary.


It's like if i saw a pro bush bumpersticker and came in and tried to use it to prove that the bush administration is terrible. It in no way addresses the political, moral, emotional and physical complexities of both sides. I think in your case you need to just take a deep breath - and know that the person with the sticker was just an idiot who bought the sticker from an idiot.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

[QUOTE=constellation

It's like if i saw a pro bush bumpersticker and came in and tried to use it to prove that the bush administration is terrible.QUOTE]

As if there were any

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Pro-bush? Where you from, Tuva? Take a drive up north or out west.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

You are especially one of the regulars on this forum who seem incapable ot responding throughfully instead of hyperbolically. I don't mean "thoughtfully" as in "nicely" or "kindly", I mean using your brain to disect things instead of just lashing out. How about trying that? All you can do is ridicule the start of this thread as being from a bumper sticker...well...

The problem you avoid in the cranky start to you post is that this misleading disconnection of sexuality and abortion by pro-choice voices is much more ubiquitous than just bumper stickers. This misleading disconnection is almost necessary to create a pro-abortion argument. For, if you bring a chicken-and-egg concept to the table between responsible sexuality and abortion, pro-choice folks seem incapable of arguing against the idea that a more responsible approach to sexuality would lead to less (or viartually no) abortion and lead to a better situation for children who do get the chance to be born (since sexuality, conception and birth and child rearing would all come from original desires to be responsible in the first place)

If you all could try very, very hard on disassociating arguments again abortion rights from perceived moral attacks (oddly Bush's Mouth-Breathers have the same fault) and actually address the subject of this thread, it could be worthwhile. If someone could actually show how personal and couped sexual responsibility has nothing to do with conception and abortion, I would be truly amazed.

Did you mean "parochialism"? I don't see how the word fits into your statement. "parochialism" generally means "narrowmindedness". Did you actually mean to say:

???

jason

constellation

iTrader: (1)

I'm dum.

I actually agree with you for the most part. I am pro-choice though - only because I have been bred that way - just as many of you christains had it squished into your heads at an early age. I do agree that a more responsible approach would lead to far less abortions - however, there simply are going to be mishaps and crimes and the like. There is still a margin for failure with almost all non-surgical methods - and in those instances i think it should be available - and obviously in the case of rape. Etc.
We are slowly losing the ability to take responsibility for ourselves, and that is scary when it comes to abortion - the tendency to use it as birth control already is a problem.
Ultimatley, I've also been bred to believe it's not my issue - it comes between a woman and a child and her choice - and as a man you accept and respect her choice and act appropriately. There are obviously flaws in that logic - but some things you can't dissect with logic. I think thats all i can say on that without slipping out into blurry moral seas with no paddle.

Er, actually it was a stupid word that squirted out of my fingers and i decided to keep it as a joke. I'm glad to see it was so well recieved. :\

FW Motorsports