PDA

View Full Version : A Woman's Right to Choose



FlaGator
01-28-2009, 02:42 PM
Here is something you don't read everyday from Hollywood. For once something out of Tinseltown I'm in agreement with.


“What the hell is Graham on about now?? What momentous, screeching rant is he conjuring up now; can somebody put him on a stupid TV show so he’d shut up already??” – Your name here.

No. I’m going to say it. I’m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts…but won’t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it. And believe me, I know I’ll be hated for saying it, I’ll be hated by people who don’t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed with me, had a drink with me, shot the shit with me. They’ve never met me, don’t want to meet me…but they will hate me. I’m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder.

Screams, bomb blasts, machine-gun rounds rip through plaster, I duck, but the copper-tip spears tear into meat, I run, the fire sears flesh, more screams, are they coming from me, or are they my head being torn from…my…

In the sixties and seventies I was a proud part of the peace generation. Long-haired hippies, rocker-lovers, lover-rockers, music festivals, drug explorations, peace not war, and there’s this cute piece right next to me, I’ve got a sleeping bag, would you like to get warm, and there’s a little hash left, you’re so pretty… Hey don’t laugh, we thought we were changing the world. Free love, baby, do it if it feels good, don’t look back, power to the peeps, and do your own thing. Wow, really? You mean you can be cool, have a lot of sex…and save the world all at the same time? Damn this is so f*cking bitchen! Ooh, my hair’s getting really good in the back… (Brown shoes… don’t make it! — F.Zappa)

But wait – I’m in college. I’m on a fast track to jump into the business world. I’m going to be some stick-up-the-butt loser in some establishment straight-ass job, when I really just want to party. Oops, I mean… I want to help save the world! Through drugs, sex and rock and roll. All right, we don’t really have a solid business plan made up yet…but we’re working on it. Of course I’m a Democrat! Duh!

End of flashback.

I have been on all sides of this issue for most of my life, and I can simply not escape the logic. That fetus a pregnant woman is carrying inside of her, regardless of the gestation stage, is a living, breathing human being. Yes, breathing – the amniotic sac forms 12 days after conception, and in the second trimester the baby is actually breathing the amniotic fluid. It’s not an ‘unviable tissue mass.’ Not a wart, a mole, a skin outcropping, a boil, or a bundle of uncoordinated cells. It’s not just a ‘fetus’.

It’s a baby. Not fully developed, true. Like an infant is not a fully developed and mature adult. But it’s a baby.



Read it all here (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/01/27/flashpoint-a-woman%E2%80%99s-right-to-choose%E2%80%A6/#more-32250)

wilbur
01-28-2009, 04:39 PM
Not to resurrect this stuff again... but..



I’m telling you, once you draw that line and say this is the moment it’s a human being…you’ve lost the argument. Because it’s arbitrary. On this date it’s a baby, but yesterday it was just a bunch of cells…this blob of a nothing and you can do anything you want with it, it’s okay.

The point this guy misses (well, he misses a lot... but I digress) is that pretty much any position on when life begins is mostly arbitrary. We all make certain value judgements regarding exactly what is valuable about the human experience, about life--in many respects, probably heavily guided by intuitions and feelings--and then look for the point in development where those values come into existence. It's those value judgements are mostly arbitrary.

Obviously, I believe they are less-so on the pro-choice side.

Note: If anyone responds to this by saying: "But... but... life begins at conception!! etc etc etc!!"..... they will have demonstrated they completely missed the point

Gingersnap
01-28-2009, 07:06 PM
I am just loving that site so far. :)

Lager
01-28-2009, 09:25 PM
Wilbur, I just had to ask what drives you so much in your defense of abortion? Especially considering -- assuming from your posting name -- that you are male? I've noticed one of these threads draws you out quicker than ants to a picnic. If I had to guess, than I would assume it's because you associate any attack or critique on the practice of abortion as simultaneously being a defense of religion or religious values. Am I close in my assumption?

CueSi
01-28-2009, 10:04 PM
If this is true- not all the pro-lifers I know are from the "big 3" of religions-I know Pro-life Pagans...they're against it because it harms a living thing with potential, violates some pagan rules/redes.

~QC

FlaGator
01-28-2009, 10:27 PM
Not to resurrect this stuff again... but..



The point this guy misses (well, he misses a lot... but I digress) is that pretty much any position on when life begins is mostly arbitrary. We all make certain value judgements regarding exactly what is valuable about the human experience, about life--in many respects, probably heavily guided by intuitions and feelings--and then look for the point in development where those values come into existence. It's those value judgements are mostly arbitrary.

Obviously, I believe they are less-so on the pro-choice side.

Note: If anyone responds to this by saying: "But... but... life begins at conception!! etc etc etc!!"..... they will have demonstrated they completely missed the point

Wilbur, you can produce no scientific evidence to dispute the fact that a human is a human no matter what state that human is in as long as the human is living. Common sense alone lets rational people know that the fetus is a human. Tell yourself whatever it takes to allow you to sleep through the night. Convince yourself that abortion is not murder in order to justify whatever guilt you may be trying to ease but if you think you can convince people that wrong is right and bad is good then you are probably going to be disappointed. For you to admit the truth would be for you to admit that you advocate the murder of a human whose only crime is to be conceived by parents who are more concerned for their own convenience than they are for the child they kill.

wilbur
01-29-2009, 12:32 AM
Wilbur, you can produce no scientific evidence to dispute the fact that a human is a human no matter what state that human is in as long as the human is living. Common sense alone lets rational people know that the fetus is a human. Tell yourself whatever it takes to allow you to sleep through the night.


Well, all this has been covered in the other thread.... suffice to say you miss the point. Never disputed a fetus is human... it would be silly to debate the point.. and I never have.

Your value judgement of the stuff you refer to as human is as arbitrary (or moreso) than my value judgement of the qualities I refer to as personhood.

As an aside, I saw a video the other day of some people asking pro-life protesters what a womans punishment should be if abortion were illegal... and the woman had an illegal abortion. Most were confused and really absolutely stumped as if it never occured to them to think about this.... nearly all of them said there really shouldnt be any legal repurcussions. This sentiment was also illustrated by Odysseus (I think) in the other thread when I posed the same question. It is really a curious phenomenon.. the movement spends its time doing its best to convince us that abortion, no matter at what stage, is absolutely, unequivically murder.. but its clear they actually DO make a distinction between an embryo and a living human being because they are not willing to convict a woman of homicide for getting an illegal abortion. Curious indeed.

wilbur
01-29-2009, 12:58 AM
Wilbur, I just had to ask what drives you so much in your defense of abortion? Especially considering -- assuming from your posting name -- that you are male? I've noticed one of these threads draws you out quicker than ants to a picnic. If I had to guess, than I would assume it's because you associate any attack or critique on the practice of abortion as simultaneously being a defense of religion or religious values. Am I close in my assumption?

I post in abortion threads because its such a defining issue.... it seriously effects elections, and should pro-lifers ever get their way, a devastating effect on real honest human beings. It's important.... and I like exploring these types of philosophical topics. Plus the other threads OP article was so stupidly inflammatory, idiotic..... so unbelievably stupid that it was comical... yet lo and behold most of CU was cheering it on. If CU is a reflection at all of the majority of the republican party, we are fucked.... even if we "win".

FlaGator
01-29-2009, 06:38 AM
Well, all this has been covered in the other thread.... suffice to say you miss the point. Never disputed a fetus is human... it would be silly to debate the point.. and I never have.

Your value judgement of the stuff you refer to as human is as arbitrary (or moreso) than my value judgement of the qualities I refer to as personhood.

As an aside, I saw a video the other day of some people asking pro-life protesters what a womans punishment should be if abortion were illegal... and the woman had an illegal abortion. Most were confused and really absolutely stumped as if it never occured to them to think about this.... nearly all of them said there really shouldnt be any legal repurcussions. This sentiment was also illustrated by Odysseus (I think) in the other thread when I posed the same question. It is really a curious phenomenon.. the movement spends its time doing its best to convince us that abortion, no matter at what stage, is absolutely, unequivically murder.. but its clear they actually DO make a distinction between an embryo and a living human being because they are not willing to convict a woman of homicide for getting an illegal abortion. Curious indeed.


Actually it’s not curious at all. It's called compassion.

wilbur
01-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Actually it’s not curious at all. It's called compassion.

If the rhetoric of pro-life is to be taken at face value, then we absolutely should not have any more compassion for a woman who had an abortion than we would a woman who hired a hit man to kill her child. Just like the article in the OP, just like every pro-life post on this board... they all go to extraordinary lengths to drive home the point that it is murder... equivalent to murdering a child... infanticide.... butchering babies.... chopping up a living person in a torturous procedure and sucking out their brains, etc.. Refusing to man up and not punish the woman and doctor like the murders that pro-lifers claim they are, however regrettable it may be, reveals that even many pro-lifers don't believe their own rhetoric.

Gingersnap
01-29-2009, 09:58 AM
If the rhetoric of pro-life is to be taken at face value, then we absolutely should not have any more compassion for a woman who had an abortion than we would a woman who hired a hit man to kill her child. Even the article in the OP goes to great lengths to drive home the point that it is murder. Refusing to man up and not punish the woman and doctor like murders, however regrettable it may be, reveals that even many pro-lifers don't believe their own rhetoric.

No, it reveals that we have a fundamentally different worldview from you. We aren't bound to make this kind of determination strictly according to case law while you have no other tools to use but a legal quid pro quo.

Our concern is to save the life of the child, offer the mothers dignified options, and turn the culture away from the idea that human beings who have done no wrong are expendable. We don't actually operate under the 'tooth for a tooth' standard of OT law. We don't see the issues around pregnancy and motherhood in the same light as you do.

And that's just fine, it makes us all "diverse" and "multicultural". ;)

wilbur
01-29-2009, 10:15 AM
No, it reveals that we have a fundamentally different worldview from you. We aren't bound to make this kind of determination strictly according to case law while you have no other tools to use but a legal quid pro quo.

Our concern is to save the life of the child, offer the mothers dignified options, and turn the culture away from the idea that human beings who have done no wrong are expendable. We don't actually operate under the 'tooth for a tooth' standard of OT law. We don't see the issues around pregnancy and motherhood in the same light as you do.


It reveals pro-lifers do actually make a distinction between an fetus and a living human being... something that never will be admitted honestly and without misdirection. Which reveals that the rhetoric is false, and misleading. Which also reveals the arbitrariness of pro-life positions. If you are going to suddenly say that aborting an embryo isnt the same as murdering a child, or that we should treat the situations differently... then you simply loose all right to use the typical pro-life rhetoric about murder... if you care about maintaining honesty.

Gingersnap
01-29-2009, 11:21 AM
It reveals pro-lifers do actually make a distinction between an fetus and a living human being... something that never will be admitted honestly and without misdirection. Which reveals that the rhetoric is false, and misleading. Which also reveals the arbitrariness of pro-life positions. If you are going to suddenly say that aborting an embryo isnt the same as murdering a child, or that we should treat the situations differently... then you simply loose all right to use the typical pro-life rhetoric about murder... if you care about maintaining honesty.

No, we don't lose anything. You and I have a completely different manner of viewing and framing this issue. Pro-life people haven't "suddenly" said anything new. This is not a matter of rhetoric for us, neither is it an exercise in debate. This is the part you don't understand.

We simply aren't limited by your framework in defining the terms. The fact that the majority of us bring more to the table when we consider the case of a woman who electively aborts doesn't mean that we have stepped into any kind of "gotcha" trap. We have the ability to consider this issue within the light of our own faith and that is more complex than any secular legal code.

biccat
01-29-2009, 11:35 AM
The point this guy misses (well, he misses a lot... but I digress) is that pretty much any position on when life begins is mostly arbitrary. We all make certain value judgements [sic] regarding exactly what is valuable about the human experience, about life--in many respects, probably heavily guided by intuitions and feelings--and then look for the point in development where those values come into existence. It's those value judgements [sic] are mostly arbitrary.

If all value judgments are arbitrary, and you argue against the idea of basing law on arbitrary judgments, then on what do you base your pro-choice position?

Isn't the idea that life is worth protecting only once the child is fully removed from the mother, and not a moment sooner, just as arbitrary and capricious as the idea that life should be protected at the moment of conception?

FlaGator
01-29-2009, 11:37 AM
If the rhetoric of pro-life is to be taken at face value, then we absolutely should not have any more compassion for a woman who had an abortion than we would a woman who hired a hit man to kill her child. Just like the article in the OP, just like every pro-life post on this board... they all go to extraordinary lengths to drive home the point that it is murder... equivalent to murdering a child... infanticide.... butchering babies.... chopping up a living person in a torturous procedure and sucking out their brains, etc.. Refusing to man up and not punish the woman and doctor like the murders that pro-lifers claim they are, however regrettable it may be, reveals that even many pro-lifers don't believe their own rhetoric.

Once again you demonstrate that your understanding of the Christian point of view is severely lacking and once again you are trying to compare apples with oranges. You set up a strawman and then claim that my position makes to sense because your false strawman makes no sense.

Lager
01-29-2009, 03:38 PM
I post in abortion threads because its such a defining issue....

It is a defining issue, but not quite for the reasons you cite. I like to ponder things philosophically as well, and this is what strikes me as the main question of abortion: Why is it such a big issue in a society where we have the widest variety and easiest access to birth control in history? We also have the internet, and young adults have access to more information than any earlier society. So why doesn't the practice of abortion slowly fade away? I have my opinions on the reason it doesn't but never the less, that's what we should be discussing.

Lager
01-29-2009, 03:44 PM
If all value judgments are arbitrary, and you argue against the idea of basing law on arbitrary judgments, then on what do you base your pro-choice position?

Isn't the idea that life is worth protecting only once the child is fully removed from the mother, and not a moment sooner, just as arbitrary and capricious as the idea that life should be protected at the moment of conception?

You've made a good point. I don't believe proponents of abortion could ever agree to a definitive time during a pregnancy in which it is determined or declared that from this moment on, it is now immoral to abort the child. Mainly because they look at the issue solely from what is convienent for the mother. The human, fetus, organism is secondary.

linda22003
01-29-2009, 04:15 PM
You've made a good point. I don't believe proponents of abortion could ever agree to a definitive time during a pregnancy in which it is determined or declared that from this moment on, it is now immoral to abort the child.

I don't really think that's true. I think many pro-choice people would be willing to accept limitations on abortion after the first trimester, when viability begins to become an issue. No one seems to want to compromise on that, though, since first trimester accounts for about 90%+ of all abortions.

Lager
01-29-2009, 04:56 PM
Perhaps I did generalize a little broadly. I was thinking of the opinions and statements of those farther on the left, or those along the lines of the du. What do you think accounts for those on the left, in politics mainly, who seem reluctant to speak out or legislate against the procedure known as "partial birth abortion" for example?

linda22003
01-29-2009, 05:03 PM
Perhaps I did generalize a little broadly. I was thinking of the opinions and statements of those farther on the left, or those along the lines of the du. What do you think accounts for those on the left, in politics mainly, who seem reluctant to speak out or legislate against the procedure known as "partial birth abortion" for example?

I can't speak for them, but I would imagine it's because they would see it as a "thin edge of the wedge" that would somehow lead to an overall ban. I don't know. I don't think it will ever be illegal again, so I don't share that outlook.

wineslob
01-29-2009, 05:26 PM
More ignorant "logic". The very second sperm meets egg............it's a human being. It will not be anything else. No ammount of scientific terms or bullshit semantics will change that.
As was said on SNL. " Wilbur, you ignorant slut".








Oh, please tell me, why is it the pro-abortion side will NOT mention adoption??

ljswisc
01-29-2009, 05:53 PM
It is really a curious phenomenon.. the movement spends its time doing its best to convince us that abortion, no matter at what stage, is absolutely, unequivically murder.. but its clear they actually DO make a distinction between an embryo and a living human being because they are not willing to convict a woman of homicide for getting an illegal abortion. Curious indeed.

What about the person who is arrested for robbing a convenience store because they needed to feed their starving children? Does that make not a crime? No. However there is an element of compassion.

On the other hand both people in both situations have alternatives. If we should hold one accountable we should hold the other accountable as well. I have no problem with that.

wilbur
01-29-2009, 07:52 PM
No, we don't lose anything. You and I have a completely different manner of viewing and framing this issue. Pro-life people haven't "suddenly" said anything new. This is not a matter of rhetoric for us, neither is it an exercise in debate. This is the part you don't understand.

We simply aren't limited by your framework in defining the terms. The fact that the majority of us bring more to the table when we consider the case of a woman who electively aborts doesn't mean that we have stepped into any kind of "gotcha" trap. We have the ability to consider this issue within the light of our own faith and that is more complex than any secular legal code.

What does this mean exactly? I don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too... on one hand you have people in the most vitriolic and forceful way possible doing everything they can to convince us all that abortion is murder, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts"... plain, simple, clear cut rights at conception, period... mothers who would have abortions are selfish, immoral, irresponsible, and worshippers of the self..

Then when it comes time to decide what to do about it... all of the sudden the compassion for the mother comes out (which was mysteriously missing before) and all these layers of complex nuance appear. The actual beliefs in motion are not matching the rhetoric.

Mythic
01-29-2009, 09:25 PM
and then look for the point in development where those values come into existence. It's those value judgements are mostly arbitrary.
I consider human life the most important value. Wilbur, you miss the point that a human fetus will ALWAYS become a human baby, then child, then adult. Its called human development. We don't just magically appear fully developed. Should mentally disabled children be killed because they lack characteristics other children do? Of course not.

A human fetus will 100% of the time become a person. (unless it is killed during the pregnancy)

MrsSmith
01-29-2009, 10:17 PM
Here is something you don't read everyday from Hollywood. For once something out of Tinseltown I'm in agreement with.



Read it all here (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/01/27/flashpoint-a-woman%E2%80%99s-right-to-choose%E2%80%A6/#more-32250)


I understand the hate that is leveled at someone like me who reminds people of this. To contemplate the reality is daunting. The act is horrendous and made more tragic when you consider the numbers of babies that are being disposed of every day.

Our willingness to tolerate such a holocaust says volumes of how our entire culture has been coarsened. How life itself has been cheapened. We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s tacitly encouraged. Illegitimacy has enslaved an entire underclass of our citizens, relegating them to government assistance for a lifetime, bankrupting cities, and holding an entire subculture down in dependent despair. But if you should get pregnant and it’s just not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family Planning Services, funded, thanks to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, by your tax dollars. That inconvenient fetus can be surgically ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash like so much garbage. Problem solved


Very unusual for Hollywood...a man with both brains and a heart. Great find!

FlaGator
01-29-2009, 10:18 PM
What does this mean exactly? I don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too... on one hand you have people in the most vitriolic and forceful way possible doing everything they can to convince us all that abortion is murder, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts"... plain, simple, clear cut rights at conception, period... mothers who would have abortions are selfish, immoral, irresponsible, and worshippers of the self..

Then when it comes time to decide what to do about it... all of the sudden the compassion for the mother comes out (which was mysteriously missing before) and all these layers of complex nuance appear. The actual beliefs in motion are not matching the rhetoric.

You can't be that emotionally naive. I can deplore an action but be compassionate to those who see that action as their best choice. Abortion is wrong "no if, ands or buts... plan and simple." Because I believe that does nothing to change my feelings of empathy for the woman and her situation. If I preach abstinence to my daughters and one of them gets pregnant out of wed lock does it make me a hypocrite because I still love her and do what I can to help her? No it does not. I can hate the situation but still recognize that what is done is done and care for the person and do what I can to help them. Equally I can feel abortion is murder but yet feel compassion for the woman who saw abortion as the only solution. I am saddened that you don't seem to have the emotional depth to separate the two.

Gingersnap
01-30-2009, 09:40 AM
You can't be that you are that emotionally naive. I can deplore an action but be compassionate to those who see that action as their best choice. Abortion is wrong "no if, ands or buts... plan and simple." Because I believe that does nothing to change my feelings of empathy for the woman and her situation. If I preach abstinence to my daughters and one of them gets pregnant out of wed lock does it make me a hypocrite because I still love her and do what I can to help her? No it does not. I can hate the situation but still recognize that what is done is done and care for the person and do what I can to help them. Equally I can feel abortion is murder but yet feel compassion for the woman who saw abortion as the only solution. I am saddened that you don't seem to have the emotional depth to separate the two.

Exactly. This is why these discussions never get resolved. This is our worldview. Wilbur's worldview is much more legalistic and narrow. He wants us to play by his own rigid playbook when he doesn't even know the rules in ours (and that playbook isn't confined to the KJV). ;)