|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anti-abortion rhetoric and violence
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Spoilsport ...
But yes, there are plenty of Americanisms which are older than current Queen's English usage ... 'I got me a ...', or 'gotten' for instance.
I was, of course, being ironic by lapsing into non-standard English - in this case an approximation of 'Wenglish' - the dialect of the South Wales Valleys - (hence the double 'do' in 'what I do do') in order to lecture Twilight about his/her spelling (she must be a 'she', she's someone's sister, apologies for the masculine pronouns earlier).
As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' and made such a fuss about 'colour' and 'humour' when US spelling preserves other idiosyncracies he didn't address.
Just wondering ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' and made such a fuss about 'colour' and 'humour' when US spelling preserves other idiosyncracies he didn't address.
Just wondering ...
Webster wished to develop a standard and generally favoured the simpler version of existing words. And nationalism,* he wished to distinguish American English from British English.
*Works both ways. Soccer is actually a British word. Dropped when Yanks began using it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.
When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.
I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.
Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!
No, they're not. But have a look at this list of the terrorist acts committed in the US against abortion clinics and doctors in the last 40 years, and you'll find that arson and bombs seem to be the terrorists' weapons of choice.
Shockingly, there are posters here who seem to advocate the head-up-the ass/arse notion that standard "pro-life" rhetoric is perfectly innocent and/or no worse than that of the pro-choice movement.
Baby, fuckin' schmaby! Calling people "baby killers", not to mention other inflammatory "pro-life" rhetoric obviously has encouraged a long list of violence.
[ 01. December 2015, 22:47: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.
When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.
I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.
Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
It's a sensible comment for the doctor to make and to make it in all cases of early pregnancy, which I'm confident is his practice. It's a matter better dealt with earlier rather than later.
Haven't you outgrown the "Boo, hoo,hho. That doctor was mean to me." stage?
Also, your silly story of extreme overreaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by molopata:
[qb] And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.
When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.
I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.
Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
It's a sensible comment for the doctor to make and to make it in all cases of early pregnancy, which I'm confident is his practice. It's a matter better dealt with earlier rather than later.
Haven't you outgrown the "Boo, hoo,hho. That doctor was mean to me." stage?
Also, your silly story of extreme overreaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. Try it on for size? It sure as hell doesn't fit. In fact is belongs in the trash.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
The poor doctor had probably had a few bad experiences of people coming in demanding abortions at the fourth or fifth month, when it was far too late. So he decided to issue a, "It's now or never," warning to all his patients at around the 22 month, so that wouldn't happen anymore. Of course, he's hated for it.
I've always wondered at the mindset of people who say, "If abortion was legal,(or it had worked or if we had done what the doctor suggested) I wouldn't be here!" As if their specialness is so apparent we'll all be horrified, and the thought of their near non-existence will be the ultimate Pro-Life argument. We can all tell similar stories. If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
It was pretty standard during the AIDS crisis for doctors to talk about it briefly and routinely with nearly all patients. I'm sure there were fuckwits who got all pissed off about it: "How could that damn, fucked-up, shit-faced doctor think I could ever get AIDS!"
[ 02. December 2015, 00:51: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' ...
I can't speak to "rough" but "bough" is easy to explain. There are already too many meanings to "bow" and two separate pronunciations to go with them. Adding yet another meaning would burden an already overburdened word.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The poor doctor had probably had a few bad experiences of people coming in demanding abortions at the fourth or fifth month, when it was far too late. So he decided to issue a, "It's now or never," warning to all his patients at around the 22 month, so that wouldn't happen anymore. Of course, he's hated for it.
I've always wondered at the mindset of people who say, "If abortion was legal,(or it had worked or if we had done what the doctor suggested) I wouldn't be here!" As if their specialness is so apparent we'll all be horrified, and the thought of their near non-existence will be the ultimate Pro-Life argument. We can all tell similar stories. If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
I wouldn't call that inflammatory, but it certainly fits the pro-life movement's over-all appeal to emotions. It's similar to the statement,
"I'm so glad I didn't have an abortion because I now have a precious, wonderful child."
That's well and good, but what about all those who
end up with an unwanted child who is a psychological or financial albatross or a constant reminder of a rapist, a vile relative, or a deadbeat former lover?
To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.
[ 02. December 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Soccer is actually a British word. Dropped when Yanks began using it.
[tangent] Not so. Soccer was public school jargon for "Association Football". Football was always the popular (usual form amongst most people) term in England (and I suppose in the rest of the UK as well), as it was in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world outside the US and Canada.
Why those two countries adopted the slang word I don't know, unless it was to distinguish it from the game played with an oval ball -- known in most of the world as rugby football, or rugger. The US and Canada modified rugby (though the game was still called that as late as the 1950s in some parts of Canada) to the point that, being no longer rugby but (North American) football, the normal word for the game with the round ball was not available. [/tangent]
JOhn
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Soccer is one of the codes of football. It is commonly played by girls and boys until about the age of 12, but there is a rapid falling off in followers after that age. Other codes played here include Rugby (meaning Union, the game that is played in Heaven), Rugby League, and Australian Rules. The position elsewhere may be different, but it is wrong here to appropriate the general word to only one of the codes.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.
You are a tool. An imbecilic* waste of oxygen worth no more than your temporary carbon storage value.
*Well, you could just be massively ignorant...
How about you dial down your blood pressure, engage a few brain cells and attempt semi-reasoned discussion?
Foetus - baby
Baby killer - Oppressor of women.
Both sides use emotion or suppression of emotion.
Both sides attempt to belittle and dismiss the other.
Well, more accurate to say some people do this, neither side is monolithic and there are plenty of people in the middle.
But you don't appear to wish to be rational, so shout away.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.
Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.
Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will. It also suggests that in his mind there is not the slightest moral predicament in terminating a pregnancy. Well, fuck him. I'm ok with engaging in debates about the ontological evil of certain human situations which might make it the lesser of two evils etc, but to not see any loss in capriciously scrapping a child-to-be-born is plain sick. It was perfectly clear from they way we had behaved and spoken up to that point that it did not as much as cross our mind to go for an abortion, so why bring it up? In fact he was surprised when we challenged him on his semantics and seemed slightly disappointed that we weren't inspired by them.
And something else: If I had wanted to call him murderer or potential murderer then that would have been up to me. Obviously, it would not hold up in a court of law, but all sorts of people get called murderers for all sorts of things (bankers, oilmen anybody?). Meanwhile, this doctor suggested that killing a human foetus is a mere interruption, which equally is bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The poor doctor ...
Well bugger me dead. So I'm suddenly supposed to feel sorry for him. Maybe you're right, but not for the reasons you quote.
quote:
If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
That's not the point. Avoiding a pregnancy is not the same as terminating one. Most pro-lifers start from the point of what is already there, nor from what could conceivably have been there. To use pro-Choice vocabulary, they are against potential human-beings in their foetal stage being terminally interrupted in their development to an extent that they are hindered from reaching the stage at which a birth registrar will accord them an independent identity from their mother.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.
When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.
I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
Simply for using the wrong word?
Of course he should have said 'terminate' - but what's wrong with reminding people (in good time) that they have the choice?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for the inside track on Webster, Mousethief, I've often wondered about that ...
I'm sure there are other examples and idiosyncracies all way's round ... but enough on the tangent ...
Back to the point.
I rest my case on the issue of emotiveness from both sides. And indeed, there's a parallel thing going on in the Commons debate as we speak as Cameron seems not to be backing down from his accusation last night that those who oppose the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria are 'terrorist sympathisers'.
So, if you don't vote for the bombing then you're complicit with the terrorists ... yeah, right.
That's for the thread over in Purgatory about the UK Parliamentary debate, but it's pertinent here insofar as it shows how the language can be ratcheted up and binary positions painted.
ldjjd suggests that those who suggest that the pro-choice lobby can also use emotive language and rhetoric are somehow giving carte-blanche to the often strident rhetoric of the pro-lifers ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How does that work?
If, for instance, I were to criticise a Pentecostal church, say, for being overly emotional and perhaps manipulative would it follow that I was saying that such things couldn't happen in an RC Church, for instance? No it wouldn't.
These things have to be looked at on a case by case level.
Blanket generalisations about either pro-choicers or pro-lifers don't get us anywhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.
You are a tool. An imbecilic* waste of oxygen worth no more than your temporary carbon storage value.
*Well, you could just be massively ignorant...
How about you dial down your blood pressure, engage a few brain cells and attempt semi-reasoned discussion?
Foetus - baby
Baby killer - Oppressor of women.
Both sides use emotion or suppression of emotion.
Both sides attempt to belittle and dismiss the other.
Well, more accurate to say some people do this, neither side is monolithic and there are plenty of people in the middle.
But you don't appear to wish to be rational, so shout away.
Pissist of piss-poor examples, my dear.
No sane, let alone rational, being would equate the vemon implicit in the words "baby killer" with
the words "opressor of women", and haven't we beaten the life out of why the term "baby" is used/misused/avoided?
In any case, I think no sensient being would deny that "baby" is near infinitely more emotive than "foetus/fetus".
Nowhere do I say or even suggest that either side is monolithic, nor do I say or suggest that the pro-choice movement makes no appeals to emotion. I may be stupid, but at least, I can read.
You also introduce, apparently out of somebody's ass/arse, the concept of "suppresion of emotion", an odd value for someone like you who claims to be dedicated to rational discussion. Slow as I am, I need time to think about whatever the fuck "suppression of emotion" has to do with inciting acts of violence. It sounds a bit Freudian. Perhaps you could ask your psychiatrist to clarify.
I do not, however, buy into anything that looks to me (irrational as I am) like a claim that both sides use the same kind of rhetoric. My tiny brain sees big differences.
You could possibly change my narrow mind by using your superior intellect and rationality in clearing up some questions that trouble me:
Why have all the aforementioned murders, kidnappings, bombings, etc. been directed at abortion clinics, providers, and patients?
Is there no causal cannection? Are these simply random violent crimes committed by mentally unstable people, who do so for no apparent reason?
Why have there been no (correct me if I am wrong) criminal acts directed at the various bastions of the anti-abortion movement?
By the way, my blood pressures is fine, so I feel
no need to cease my irrational shouting.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
That's not the point. Avoiding a pregnancy is not the same as terminating one. Most pro-lifers start from the point of what is already there, nor from what could conceivably have been there. To use pro-Choice vocabulary, they are against potential human-beings in their foetal stage being terminally interrupted in their development to an extent that they are hindered from reaching the stage at which a birth registrar will accord them an independent identity from their mother.
I wasn't meaning to say that avoiding a pregnancy and terminating one was the same thing. My point was that the If my mother had, had an abortion I wouldn't be here! is a bad argument for the Pro-Choice side. Another bad argument that I hear often was the story about the poverty stricken syphilitic woman with too many children who tried to abort her child and failed and that child was.....Beethoven!" I always want to counter that one with the story about a similar woman who didn't want her child and that child was Charles Manson.
But the oddest thing to me is that I first heard the Beethoven story from a nun. A woman who had obviously allowed about fifty eggs to shrivel and die in her womb. Who knows? If they had been fertilized, they might have all been Beethovens.
My husband's grandmother had twenty children. She said that from the time she married she never had a single period. She's the only person I can think of who can't imagine any ghosts of children she could have had, children who would be here now, if she had; married early, never used birth control of any kind, and never said "no."
So when you look at your daughter and get outraged at that doctor, who only reminded you and your wife that you were entering the no going back stage, ask yourself who might be nine months younger than that daughter, and nine months younger than her, etc. Because you are more responsible for those children not existing than that doctor who was just doing his job.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Hello, Gamaliel.
"djjd suggests that those who suggest that the pro-choice lobby can also use emotive language and rhetoric are somehow giving carte-blanche to the often strident rhetoric of the pro-lifers ..."
Could you unpack that for me? I don't think I intended to make any such suggestion.
Also, see my position above on generalizations. I am absolutely not attacking the entire anti-abortion movement, but on a case- by-case-basis, the cases of violence are adding up in one direction only. Why is that?
No and again no, I do not blame the whole movememnt, and almost certainly not a significant number of its members.
Don't get me started on some politicians and some clergy however. I will say "Fuck them" to keep things Hellish.
[ 02. December 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will.
"Interrupt" needn't allow for the continuance of something after the interruption. That's one way of using the word. It's not the only one. You are a victim of the "every word has exactly one meaning" fallacy. Someone should give that a Latin or Greek name.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok ldjjd, here's a bit of 'unpacking' as requested ...
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Shockingly, there are posters here who seem to advocate the head-up-the ass/arse notion that standard "pro-life" rhetoric is perfectly innocent and/or no worse than that of the pro-choice movement. [/QUOTE]
I don't see anyone here who has made such a claim. I don't see anyone here who is in favour of the kind of emotive rhetoric favoured by certain sections of the pro-life movement.
On the issue of the violence being one-sided ie. by pro-lifers against pro-choicers - well yes, I would agree that this has been the case - although, in fairness and in no way aiming to take some kind of moral high-ground with this observation, it is also the case that attacks on abortion clinics, patients and personnel has been more a feature of US pro-life movements.
I might be wrong, but the worst I've been aware of over here are emotive protests outside abortion clinics and health centres - which, although ugly, insensitive and unpleasant - have yet to escalate into threats against life and limb.
I've got to be honest, I do feel uncomfortable with the kind of equivalence that Twilight appears to draw between a nun's ovulation cycle and the termination of pregnancy. That's just as muddle-headed - in my view - as claiming that hundreds of potential human lives have been extinguished each time a teenage lad has a wet dream or jerks himself off.
In neither instance has conception taken place - or is that a naive view on my part?
Sure, I recognise that there are issues with various forms of contraception but am I naive in continuing to believe that there is a substantive difference in 'barrier' or other pre-conception methods of contraception and post-conception abortion?
I'm not advocating a ban on abortion ... or the excoriation of those who have - for whatever reason - chosen to go down that route ... but I still feel very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion as a general form of contraception other than in particular circumstances.
That may put me at variance with Twilight and ldjjd but it surely doesn't put me on the same platform as ranting pro-life preachers or those who incite people to attack abortion clinics and threaten patients and staff?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
That's the point I was trying to make.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
US spelling is different [/QUOTE]
Well, duh ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do you think I didn't know that?
Your brain is different and your quickness on the uptake is different. Perhaps you need to give that some attention?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Gamaliel,
I am definitely very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion as a general form of contraception other than in particular circumstances.
I very much agree with a great man who said, "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
I see no reason, however for some anti-abortion people to use inflammatory terms like "baby killer" or "muderess" inter alia.
[ 02. December 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got to be honest, I do feel uncomfortable with the kind of equivalence that Twilight appears to draw between a nun's ovulation cycle and the termination of pregnancy. That's just as muddle-headed - in my view - as claiming that hundreds of potential human lives have been extinguished each time a teenage lad has a wet dream or jerks himself off.
Did I equate a nun's ovulation cycle with termination of pregnancy? If so, I didn't mean to. What I was talking about was the argument of; "Someone who is born wouldn't have been born if..." As far as that argument (not the abortion argument) goes, the mythical person is just as missing if the nun never has children as it would be if she had an abortion. Because if you keep talking about potential life. Every egg has potential and yes that teenage boy is wasting potential life, too. See "seed on the ground" rule per Leviticus.
Gamaliel, you think you know which side of the abortion issue I'm on, but I haven't actually said anything about that here. I'm trying very hard not to get into Dead Horses territory so I've kept my remarks limited to the rhetoric surrounding the issue.
I think I could argue both sides of the issue pretty well, but the first thing I would do would be scratch a whole lot of what I see as really silly remarks frequently used by both sides.
(1) Starting with the Beethoven story, because that embryo could just as easily be a mass murderer.
(2)Leaving out any mention of rape, because if that's a fully living,viable baby in there, then it's not his fault his father was a rapist and we wouldn't kill a five year-old if we found out his father was a rapist, would we?
(3) Leaving out falsehoods about how much guilt the aborting mother is likely to feel.
(4) Leaving out lies about abortion causing breast cancer.
(5) Leaving out twisted inference that "I knew you in the womb," means abortion is wrong because firstly, it's probably meant symbolically and secondly, it could mean, "I knew you in the final trimester," for all we know.
(6) Keeping in the mentions of quickening and when John the B leapt in the womb, because if you're looking for Biblical backing of when the soul enters the fetus, I think that four month old quickening age would be a good place to start.
And so on. There are many more good and bad arguments on both sides, but the worst are clearly the arguments that ask us to see the fetus exactly the same way we see a five year old, because there lies the impetus to murder doctors.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will.
"Interrupt" needn't allow for the continuance of something after the interruption. That's one way of using the word. It's not the only one. You are a victim of the "every word has exactly one meaning" fallacy. Someone should give that a Latin or Greek name.
I don't think I am. It is the implication that the pregnancy might be continued which is the problem, and kind of softens what one is talking about. "Abort" would be infinitely more accurate, but considerably harsher. It's not the first time that the use of ambiguous language is used to make certain ideas acceptable which might otherwise be treated as outrageous.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I think it should be obvious that Twilight isn't really equating the nun and the abortion. It's a reductio ad absurdam response to a very familiar argument. I'm used to seeing this argument as "be glad your mum is pro-life!" or "everyone arguing for abortion has already been born!" Basically "What if YOU had been aborted, smartass? What then?"
It's annoying not least because my mum is very, very pro-choice. I was very much a wanted baby. But had I not been wanted I think it would have been fine for her to have aborted the embryo that eventually became me. The world would have coped just fine, as it may have done in all the alternate universes in which I wasn't born.
But I think there's a really important point here. For many of us on the pro-choice side (and I'm as pro-choice as they come, so if you want to fight the "extreme" pro-choicer I'm your opponent) there really is no moral difference between a person who was never born because Mrs Smith had a headache that night, and a person who was never born because Mrs Smith had an abortion at nine weeks pregnant. I don't consider that embryo a person. It had no experience of life. I don't consider that abortion a tragedy. I do think that it's better to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, obviously, but not because I think that this type of abortion is morally wrong, but it is unpleasant and expensive. What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it. I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I can see what you're getting at, Twilight but perhaps I have the disadvantage (or advantage?)of not being as familiar with that sort of rhetoric as we don't so much of it on this side of the Pond ... even in full-on evangelical circles.
I've been involved with evangelical churches which were very pro-life and which ran 'Pregnancy Crisis Centres' and the like - but whilst I'd distance myself from elements if that, I can honestly say I've never once heard the Beethoven argument or any of the other tropes you've cited.
Perhaps it's a Pond thing. I'm not for a moment suggesting we're more sophisticated on this side of the Atlantic or that the US consists of wall-to-wall internet memes masquerading as debate ...
Anyone, this has got Purgatorial and I've got nothing to argue with you about any more.
Abandon thread ... abandon thread ...
(Although I could question your apparent literalism about the Onanism thing or attempts to identify when the soul enters the body and so on ... but that would be arguing for the sake of it ... which has never stopped me arguing before but time to stop I think ...)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
An article proving that anti-abortion violence does not in fact diminish the number of abortions.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I always expected it would actually increase the number of abortions by taking away one of the main sources of birth control.
The Mighty Sea Creature's signature made me laugh and now I don't feel like fighting anymore.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it.
Yeah, don't know too many of those people myself.
Those people would be misguided.
quote
I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No one should feel bad for having to make that choice. But this does not equate with trying to reduce the necessity of that choice.
From a disease POV, from a medical POV; prevention is better than a remedy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I take it that the information that having no abortion law, and regulating it entirely within health care in Canada and associated lower abortion rates in The Great White North than the comparable country to our south doesn't register at all. WTF! Free access and dealing with this entirely privately as a medical thing means lower abortion rates.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
the information that having no abortion law, and regulating it entirely within health care in Canada and associated lower abortion rates
doesn't seem relevant to anti-abortion rhetoric and whether that is a form of, and/or incites, terrorism. If you want to make a point that gets acknowledgement then perhaps you need to either make it relevant or extremely outrageous.
Besides, you have stated an association with lower abortion rates. That doesn't suggest causation, and your language suggests you're not even sure there's a causal link. This is probably a different thread, but ISTM that the most effective means of reducing the rates of abortion will include:
- Quality sex education
- Availability of contraception
- Access to quality family planning counselling
- Availability of parental leave and for low income families welfare to support the costs of child rearing
- Assistance in adoption for those who would prefer to carry to term but (for whatever reason) are unable to care for the child themselves
- General reduction in poverty through the provision of high quality medical care free at the point of need, a minimum wage at close to living wage levels, welfare for those unable to find work etc
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Indeed.
I think it's clear how all or most of the occupants of the clown car have addressed or would address your six sensible (imho) suggestions.
If any one of those loathsome nincompoops becomes President, the US is well and truly fucked in matters way beyond abortion.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it. I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make.
And I don't go in for the rhetoric that says that being willing to discuss the morality of abortion equates to being anti-choice, which is an inherently violent position.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
I certainly don't think that the pro-life movement is inherently violent. I doubt that many pro-choice people think that either, nor am I aware of such sweeping rhetoric.
[ 03. December 2015, 01:11: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
No, not at all. [oops, you edited your message so that doesn't make sense]
Such sweeping rhetoric exists. Can't be bothered to torment the Hell-hosts with multiple examples since the last time they threatened to plank me for doing so.
You can argue all you want that that rhetoric is being spouted by a small percentage of the population: when that small percentage controls the schools, therefore the law schools, therefore the courts...
I agree with Alan on what should be done. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the rhetoric being shouted is being shouted by such a small minority as to not matter. I don't particularly understand why violent rhetoric only matters when one side does it.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
By and large they don't want to reduce abortion RATES. If you ask them if they would prefer to drastically reduce the rates, or make abortion illegal, most will choose to make it illegal, even if that means the rates are higher. Because morality, or something. Actual number of babies dying doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. Or something.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
By and large they don't want to reduce abortion RATES. If you ask them if they would prefer to drastically reduce the rates, or make abortion illegal, most will choose to make it illegal, even if that means the rates are higher. Because morality, or something. Actual number of babies dying doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. Or something.
Bingo. With the 'something' being power and control. The ability to tell people (the sort of people who have the capacity for pregnancy) what they can and can't do with their own bodies. It's not enough to stop them wanting one. They must be unable to get one, regardless of what they may or may not want.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Of course he should have said 'terminate' - but what's wrong with reminding people (in good time) that they have the choice?
On what planet is it normal behaviour for a doctor to ask a mother who goes to her doctor for a confirmation of pregnancy / first prenatal visit whether she wants to get rid of it? Let alone, as molopata seems to describe, suggest that you should kill it off!
If you go to get a haircut, do you insist that your hairdresser point out that you can always have it all shaved off?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Regarding what Anoesis said.
I'm currently reading an old book by Faith Baldwin, popular author of the WWII generation. In this novel, contemporary for 1942, a young woman is in labor in the hospital. Her husband is off at war and her in-laws, whom she has only known for a few weeks, are in the waiting room.
After 12 hours of hard labor the doctor leaves the entirely lucid young woman, goes into the waiting room, and tells the father-in-law that things look bad, he's afraid he can only save one, mother or baby, which one does he prefer?
I almost dropped the book. This was a romance, the woman in labor wasn't even the protagonist, so the writer wasn't even trying to make a point, it was just taken for granted that the nearest man would make this life or death decision for the woman he barely knew.
[ 03. December 2015, 11:07: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one should feel bad for having to make that choice. But this does not equate with trying to reduce the necessity of that choice.
From a disease POV, from a medical POV; prevention is better than a remedy.
Of course prevention is better. Not having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place is better than having an abortion in every respect. But given that shit happens, contraception sometimes fails, circumstances change, people get carried away in the moment, abusive partners sabotage contraception, I don't think that anyone should have to feel bad about making the right choice.
In practice much of the atmosphere in the US seems to be aimed at just this kind of "you can have an abortion but you should feel bad about it and it should be difficult." Mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds etc, that serve no purpose whatsoever except making the whole process more difficult and infantilising women who know already exactly what their situation is and why they're there. They then often have to walk past a loud of people shouting "murderer" at them. Then the pro-life crowd insist that women are always crushed by guilt after having an abortion, which is why you shouldn't have one, while at the same time doing their best to create that guilt in the first place. It reminds me of the "you can see that homosexuality sick and wrong because of the high suicide rate of homosexuals, which is absolutely not caused by people like me constantly telling these people that they're sick and wrong."
I dunno. I think I've gone all shouty with you and you don't deserve it, but I'm so frustrated with all of this. I've reached the point where I don't see any way forward, because the two sides are committed to things that are mutually incompatible, and every single argument has been made a thousand times.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")
That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
IMO, calling a "fetus" a "baby" falls apart when you start calling an embryo a fetus. That allows one to say it's a baby from the moment of conception. Words do matter.
I wouldn't agree that the right incites violence against abortion providers, but they certainly provide the justification for those with a tendency to run with it.
And, to top it all off, following the San Bernardino shootings, we have the right yelling about "Muslim Muderers", but horrified at the suggestion the PP shooter was a Christian killer.
Fuck 'em all.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")
That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
No, it means that the rest of us have to cope with the fact that the RC is both a major pro-life force and (pardon me, RC shipmates) seriously messed up in their thinking about contraception.
I'd happily give condoms out like candy if I had the money. And IMHO so would most of the rest of us (non-RC) types.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")
That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
No, it means that the rest of us have to cope with the fact that the RC is both a major pro-life force and (pardon me, RC shipmates) seriously messed up in their thinking about contraception.
I'd happily give condoms out like candy if I had the money. And IMHO so would most of the rest of us (non-RC) types.
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There's this really strange theory going around that if you make it easy to get contraception then you're encouraging young people to have sex. It's probably much closer to the truth that if they're thinking of having sex the provision of a condom won't change that - it'll just make sure they have safer sex.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It dates all the way back to the Comstock laws and the Victorian strictures against even mentioning all that icky physical stuff. In that period the ideal was, not only do you not get birth control, you do not know about the Birds and the Bees and when you get married you chart those unknown waters like Columbus. Ten minutes of historical reading would reveal how well this works. (Google on Ruskin's marriage for a sterling example.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<snip>
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
What about unmarried men? Are they punished for screwing around too?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
