A thought about our significance

[carpedm9587]

Without TOTAL liberty, sure, but most of us can stand some temporary PARTIAL restrictions. You make it sound like a pregnant woman's life just stops, or is held hostage.

The partial restriction involves telling a mature, independent woman who has not transgressed a law what she may or may not do with her own body. Sorry, CP, I'm not going there with you. If you feel comfortable doing that - so be it. I'm not going to.

Actually, the Jewish Rabbi I know says life begins when the dog dies and the kids move away.

I think you're really overplaying this "slavery" angle - she's still free to live her life, albeit with some limitations or complications resulting from decisions (in the vast majority of cases) that she made herself.

You are entitled to your view. I know you (and others here) seriously object to the language. I don't see it as any less accurate (or gentle) than calling those who have an abortion "murderers." In my book, telling a mature, independent human being who has not transgressed a law what she may or may not do with her body for several months is a form of institutionalized slavery. It has no place in our society, and I certainly would not advocate for it to be enshrined in law.

[Cow Poke]

The partial restriction involves telling a mature, independent woman who has not transgressed a law what she may or may not do with her own body. Sorry, CP, I'm not going there with you. If you feel comfortable doing that - so be it. I'm not going to.

So, you believe actions shouldn't have consequences? Not even considering the fact that an innocent life is terminated for the convenience of somebody who (in the vast majority of cases) allowed that life to begin.

[Sparko]

The partial restriction involves telling a mature, independent woman who has not transgressed a law what she may or may not do with her own body. Sorry, CP, I'm not going there with you. If you feel comfortable doing that - so be it. I'm not going to.







You are entitled to your view. I know you (and others here) seriously object to the language. I don't see it as any less accurate (or gentle) than calling those who have an abortion "murderers." In my book, telling a mature, independent human being who has not transgressed a law what she may or may not do with her body for several months is a form of institutionalized slavery. It has no place in our society, and I certainly would not advocate for it to be enshrined in law.

We have laws that tell everyone what they may not do with their bodies every day of their lives.

[carpedm9587]

So, you believe actions shouldn't have consequences?

Nope.

Not even considering the fact that an innocent life is terminated for the convenience of somebody who (in the vast majority of cases) allowed that life to begin.

I agree that an innocent life is being terminated, since I believe life begins at implantation. As I have said many, many times, abortion pits two core values against one another. The only way to win that game is not to have to make the choice. Ergo - our energy would best be spent finding ways to minimize/eliminate unwanted pregnancies, rather than pointing rhethorical guns at one another in a pointless tug of war that just has more children dying on a daily basis.

Modern societies have embraced abortion rights. That is unlikely to change. The question is - what alternatives do we have to work with that can actually make gains. Or we can continue to sit here and hurl invectives across the moral divide.

[carpedm9587]

We have laws that tell everyone what they may not do with their bodies every day of their lives.

Sparko - I'm not sure exactly what laws you have in mind, but I know of no law that has the equivalent medical impact of one that says to a woman, "you will carry to term or go to jail." The state has no business in the medical decisions of the individual.

[Cow Poke]

Nope.

Well, you SAY that...

I agree that an innocent life is being terminated, since I believe life begins at implantation. As I have said many, many times, abortion pits two core values against one another.

BUT, you'll go into theory instead of practicality....

The only way to win that game is not to have to make the choice. Ergo - our energy would best be spent finding ways to minimize/eliminate unwanted pregnancies, rather than pointing rhethorical guns at one another in a pointless tug of war that just has more children dying on a daily basis.

It's not a game. And babies die.

Modern societies have embraced abortion rights. That is unlikely to change. The question is - what alternatives do we have to work with that can actually make gains. Or we can continue to sit here and hurl invectives across the moral divide.

Who's 'hurling invectives'?

[Sparko]

Sparko - I'm not sure exactly what laws you have in mind, but I know of no law that has the equivalent medical impact of one that says to a woman, "you will carry to term or go to jail." The state has no business in the medical decisions of the individual.

Nice attempt to nitpick and wiggle out of what you said, but you said 'a law what she may or may not do with her own body.' We have laws that say you can't take certain drugs, can't kill yourself, can't take your body certain places, can't do certain activities. Laws are pretty much all about what you can't do. I guess you are the slave of the state whether you want to be or not.

and it is not like a woman was forced to become pregnant. When you do something voluntarily, you are legally responsible for the consequences, even if you don't like them.

[carpedm9587]

Well, you SAY that...

BUT, you'll go into theory instead of practicality....

The practicality is that this battle has been fought and lost. The next question is, what do we do about the innocents.

It's not a game. And babies die.

You're right - it's not a game. So if the right was REALLY serious about stopping the deaths, they would put all of their energy into strategies with a chance of reducing the carnage. Instead, they continue to try to fight legal battles, denigrate those who are getting the abortions, and picket another Planned Parenthood center. To me - that's just gamesmanship. The goal isn't to save lives - it's to win the legal and moral debate. Personally, I find those people who are unwilling to come to the table and find strategies that work just as culpable as those who are getting the abortions.

Who's 'hurling invectives'?

I was speaking generally about the national discussion/debate - not specifically about you. The left clings to "my right to choose." The left clings to "innocent babies." Each side takes what they believe to be the moral high-ground, and lambastes the other side for being immoral, culpable, irresponsible, bad, evil, etc., etc., etc.

What really impresses me is the people getting off their backsides and joining in to teach, counsel, support, and encourage. One person helping a woman find an alternative path for her and her child in a caring, supportive way is worth 10 thousand picketers and demonstrators. The world has plenty of the latter hurling their condemnations - on both sides. It has too precious few of the former. I wonder how many more babies would be saved if more people put down their signs and their invectives and just tried to help - in a spirit of compassion.

[Cow Poke]

I was speaking generally about the national discussion/debate - not specifically about you. The left clings to "my right to choose." The left clings to "innocent babies."

I pray for the day when the left "clings to innocent babies".

[carpedm9587]

I pray for the day when the left "clings to innocent babies".

They do, CP. That's the part you and the right just don't seem to get. They do not see the unborn child as a baby. They see the woman that is right in front of them - and not the fetus growing inside of her. This is not an "odd" position. It is a position taken by many religions, many lands, many cultures around the world. You disagree. Fine. But then many of those who believe as you do go further and treat the woman as if she is making a decision with YOUR worldview about whether or not it is a life. So they are called (and treated like) "baby killers" and "murders" and "morally evil."

As a result, instead of looking for ways to bridge the divide and attempt to find ways to actually see to the best interests of the baby, the factions polarize and entrench. In that war, the right is (IMO) as culpable as the left. It takes two sides to war. It often only takes one side to reach out and heal the breach.

[Cow Poke]

They do, CP. That's the part you and the right just don't seem to get. They do not see the unborn child as a baby.

They can't! It would destroy their whole "choice" argument. So they close their eyes to the science just like they accuse the "climate deniers" of doing.

There is FAR MORE evidence, however, that there's a baby in the womb than that man is destroying the planet through 'climate change'. It is hypocrisy on steroids.

[QuantaFille]

Where on earth did I ever say I'm smarter than everyone else?

Where did I say I meant you specifically? I'm pointing out the general tendency with that worldview, just as you are with ours. There may be a few atheists who are more humble, but overwhelmingly (especially online) atheists are unbearably egotistically arrogant with their "we've got everything figured out with science, and you religious people are so gullible". I recognise that you may not be one of them, just as I recognise that you don't mean that us lot are necessarily a bunch of egotistical jerks who think that we're the centre of the universe. I'm merely pointing out that if one view can be boiled down to "we're more awesome than everything else", then so can the other. I do tend to see a lot of atheists gloating over how far superior their intellect is over those puny religious people, though, even if you specifically haven't.

[carpedm9587]

They can't! It would destroy their whole "choice" argument. So they close their eyes to the science just like they accuse the "climate deniers" of doing.

Not the people I talk to, CP. They don't cling to it so they can have the choice argument; they have the choice argument because they don't see it as a baby. I know you dispute that - but I have to wonder when was the last time you had a conversation with anyone outside your bubble about this issue.

There is FAR MORE evidence, however, that there's a baby in the womb than that man is destroying the planet through 'climate change'. It is hypocrisy on steroids.

For you, it's about the "evidence." It is hypocrisy. You dole out your charts on genomes and heart beat and brain activity and scream: look - it's a BABY!!! But a significant part of the world says, "you're wrong." We pull the plug on breathing, adult human beings who show the kind of neural activity that an early-stage fetus has. We separate conjoined twins, knowing that the operation may cost one of them their lives. You want to ignore all of the counter arguments and cling to "I'm right! It's human and it's a baby!" So, cling to your arguments. Continue to see the other side as the perveyors of evil. Disparage them. Denigrate them. Ridicule them.

And when the problem continues to not be solved, when you next shave, remind yourself that the person in the mirror is part of the problem, simply by refusing to be part of the solution and clinging to "I'm right!" As I said - invectives across the moral divide.

[Cow Poke]

Not the people I talk to, CP. They don't cling to it so they can have the choice argument; they have the choice argument because they don't see it as a baby.

And, looking at a sonogram, and medical facts, and science -- how can they NOT?

I know you dispute that - but I have to wonder when was the last time you had a conversation with anyone outside your bubble about this issue.

I support and volunteer quite a bit at a local pregnancy center, as well as quite a bit of "mission outreach" stuff to the homeless and "down-and-outters" - I'm gonna bet I deal with people "outside my bubble" far more than you do outside of your own.

For you, it's about the "evidence." It is hypocrisy. You dole out your charts on genomes and heart beat and brain activity and scream: look - it's a BABY!!!

Calm yourself, brother - you're kinda going dramaqueen on me. I do no such things. I sit with pregnant women and listen to them.

I think I'm just going to pass on the rest of your post -- you're getting kinda ... um......

I'll pass

[carpedm9587]

Where did I say I meant you specifically? I'm pointing out the general tendency with that worldview, just as you are with ours. There may be a few atheists who are more humble, but overwhelmingly (especially online) atheists are unbearably egotistically arrogant with their "we've got everything figured out with science, and you religious people are so gullible". I recognise that you may not be one of them, just as I recognise that you don't mean that us lot are necessarily a bunch of egotistical jerks who think that we're the centre of the universe. I'm merely pointing out that if one view can be boiled down to "we're more awesome than everything else", then so can the other. I do tend to see a lot of atheists gloating over how far superior their intellect is over those puny religious people, though, even if you specifically haven't.

I do not deny that there are obnoxious atheists - just as their are obnoxious theists. But I will refute that atheism is an intrinsically arrogant worldview. To be atheist requires accepting that we are indeed small and insignificant on a cosmic scale - that our importance is actually self-importance. Anyone who is a scientist, atheist or theist, and understand science knows that science is limited - cannot explain all things - and is often misused. It is also incapable of definitively absolute statements. Proper science is always open to the next discovery that will show something we thought to be true to be wrong. An atheist, especially one with a scientific bent, is confronted regularly with insignificance.

Indeed, Quanta - I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have been told here that my worldview is one of despair and pointlessness, whereas the theist has hope, eternity, and this allpowerful creator god that loves and cares for every hair on their head - granting them significance.

In light of that - your comments strike me as...well...a little odd.