Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Counterpoint

Question for Pro-Lifers

99 Comments
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 1:48 PM Jim the Calvinist writes:

"Ending a pregnancy" is homicide

You are killing another human being. Is that worth your eyesight? I know it is a hard line, but murder is murder.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 1:52 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

"life-saving abortions[?]"

That's a new term. Good luck with that one.


Why should a child have to die because of the risk you decided to take?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 2:54 PM animalgirl writes:

Life-saving abortions

"Why should a child have to die because of the risk you decided to take?"

Which risk are you talking about? The risk of getting pregnant? So you're saying that no woman should get pregnant unless she is willing to give her life should a complication develop?

If that's the case, it seems it is immoral for anyone to ever have more than one child.

The Talmud actually teaches very clearly that one SHOULD end a pregnancy in order to save a woman's life, as actual human life should be valued over potential human life. I know the Talmud is not the Bible, but there is a long tradition of moral people taking that stance.

So Jimmy Carter--do you always value the life of a fetus over the life of a woman?

Why is one so much more worth protecting than the other to you?

Or is it really true that the only lives conservatives really care about are fetuses, and after you're born, you could care less about life?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 3:04 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I'll be happy to have this discussion...

..with you.

Does a Father have a "right" to an abortion?


And: "Or is it really true that the only lives conservatives really care about are fetuses, and after you're born, you could care less about life?"

Not necessary. Actually, I care so much about innocent lives, that I encourage the 2nd Amendment protection to "fetuses" in order for them to protect themselves from willing murderers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 5:05 PM animalgirl writes:

Jimmy

What about the case of tubal pregnancies, where the pregnancy will kill the mother long before the fetus is viable, and both will die? Do you accept abortions in the case of these pregnancies, where the fetus will inevitably die anyway. Or are you going to be stubborn and insist that the mother die to no real end, possibly leaving motherless children?

Is this really a 'pro-life' position?? Funny how a 'pro-life' position can end up with more dead....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 5:12 PM animalgirl writes:

?

Since father's cannot be pregnant, fathers cannot have abortions. Sorry. I know it's a little unfair.

It's also unfair that fathers can have children without nine months of sickness, exhaustion, sleeplessness, high blood pressure, and back pain. Culminating in a 10-hour genital-tearing ordeal. Followed by months of a severely restricted diet and bloody nipples.

But hey, life's not fair.

When pregnancy affects the father as much as it affects the mother, we can talk about equality on the child-bearing front.

"I care so much about innocent lives, that I encourage the 2nd Amendment protection to "fetuses" in order for them to protect themselves from willing murderers."

Ahh, good old poor risk assessment. I am all for 2nd amendment protections, but I will not have a gun in my house, since a gun in the house is twice as likely to harm an occupant of the house as it is to harm a criminal.

But you have the right to make foolish decisions in this country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 5:12 PM animalgirl writes:

?

Since father's cannot be pregnant, fathers cannot have abortions. Sorry. I know it's a little unfair.

It's also unfair that fathers can have children without nine months of sickness, exhaustion, sleeplessness, high blood pressure, and back pain. Culminating in a 10-hour genital-tearing ordeal. Followed by months of a severely restricted diet and bloody nipples.

But hey, life's not fair.

When pregnancy affects the father as much as it affects the mother, we can talk about equality on the child-bearing front.

"I care so much about innocent lives, that I encourage the 2nd Amendment protection to "fetuses" in order for them to protect themselves from willing murderers."

Ahh, good old poor risk assessment. I am all for 2nd amendment protections, but I will not have a gun in my house, since a gun in the house is twice as likely to harm an occupant of the house as it is to harm a criminal.

But you have the right to make foolish decisions in this country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 5:13 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I'll answer Your question..

...after you answer mine: Does a Father have a "right" to an abortion?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 5:26 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Obviously, I jumped the gun.

A Right is either for everyone or noone.

What if the Father cannot/willnot provide financially, should he be able to have the baby aborted?


When you women complain about pregnancy, y'all come across as upset y'all were born women. It's called responsibility. It's an awesome responsibility, and pregnancy is also a risk. Sometimes a life and death risk. I am on the side of the most innocent among us, the child.

Also, my guns have never harmed anyone....they're pretty respectful of My household and visitors.

Yes, you have the right to make foolish decisions, like getting pregnant.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 6:41 PM ShiningCity writes:

How important is the Father

When pregnancy affects the father as much as it affects the mother, we can talk about equality on the child-bearing front.

______________________

Try taking on the problem to society developed when a girl does NOT have a father.

Hence, I would say: fathers are every bit as important. Bloody nipples or not. I'm sure many a fathers who have signed their daughter's into rehab or picked them up from the abortion clinic might liken the experience to bloody nipples.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 6:42 PM ShiningCity writes:

I am pro-life except

in the case of saving a mother's life.

This is easy:

It's saving a mother's LIFE, not a mother's VISION.

I do not equate your vision with your life.
If you knew that blindness was a risk during your pregnancy, then you should have considered that prior. I'm not trying to be disparaging, only direct, as you asked.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 6:54 PM ShiningCity writes:

Wife?

I am interested why, in your biography, you list that you are a mother, but not a wife?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 8:41 PM animalgirl writes:

Foolish

If you think everyone who wants to have a child is foolish, you are entitled to that opinion. The human race won't last too long if too many people share you opinion.

I am not complaining about being a woman. I am just saying that men seem kind of funny when they talk about 'unfair' when it comes to child-rearing.

Guess what?? It's not fair. And it's not going to be.

A father has every right to go to an abortion clinic and get an abortion, but the doctor may have a hard time finding his uterus.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:07 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

The doctor may not find his uterus,

but the Father can lead the doctor to his child.

Women have been known to die during childbirth. "It's not fair. And it's not going to be." So why should the child have to die?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:31 PM animalgirl writes:

Shining City

I also did not list that I am a sister, daughter, friend, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, aunt, cousin, niece, Southerner, Indophile, parrot-owner, loud-talker, Indie rock girl, alto,whiskey-drinker Theremin-player, or a closet lover of fantasy novels.

But I am all those things. And also a wife.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:37 PM animalgirl writes:

Blue Cross?

"but the Father can lead the doctor to his child."

Really? You may have better health insurance than I do. I've never been able to get my doctor to follow me around town; I have a hard enough time just getting an appointment with my OB.

"Women have been known to die during childbirth. "It's not fair. And it's not going to be." So why should the child have to die? "

Because if you must choose between lives, it makes more sense to choose the person who has other responsibilities and attachments.

It gets to the deep-down misogyny of the harcore pro-lifers. You say 'pro-life.' But you are ONLY pro-FETAL life. It doesn't stir your conscience if a woman dies.

Some pro-lifers are SO anti-woman, that they want the woman to die EVEN IF THE BABY WILL DIE TOO, ANYWAY. That's not pro-life!! That's pro-death!

These kinds of hardcore pro-lifers want women to be punished for their sins with death. Women's only value is as incubators for fetuses. EXCEPT only foolish and sinful women ALLOW themselves to become incubators for these sacred fetuses. So they deserve to die.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:45 PM animalgirl writes:

Shining City

Not surprised at the answer, just wanted to know.

As for the life thing, though, how in danger would a woman's life need to be. Say a woman was diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer in her first trimester. Should she be allowed to terminate her pregnancy and be treated for cancer?

What if there was only a 20% chance the cancer would progress during her pregnancy? A 50% chance? What if a woman's blood pressure skyrockets (a common occurrence) to the point that she is in grave danger of a stroke, which may or may not kill her?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:51 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Misogyny?

There may be some out there, I wouldn't doubt it.

"..it makes more sense to choose the person who has other responsibilities and attachments."

Then why stop the killing at the womb? What's wrong with killing a month old child? They may not have resposibilities or "attachments."

So, you think killing a child is "pro-life" and not "pro-death[?]"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:06 PM animalgirl writes:

straw men

I think that ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life, especially when the embryo will not survive anyway (like in the case of a tubal pregnancy), is pro-life.

I say letting a death happen to no real purpose is pro-death.

Once a child is out of the womb, they are no longer within the woman's body and their ability to live is no longer intertwined. So that's a silly straw man.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:17 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

So, what's it called...

...when the Mother wants an abortion so that her eyesight is not impaired? Pro-sight?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:28 PM animalgirl writes:

what

I think it's called wanting to put the needs of my existing family before the needs of a being that is not yet human.

If men gave birth this wouldn't be an issue. It's only because men like you value women so little that it's an issue.

Heck, why should I see? I'm just a woman, a fancy piece of fetus-incubating equipment. I have no other purpose besides making babies, right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:31 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Can you cook?

.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:58 PM animalgirl writes:

Quite well

So I guess in your mind I have a second purpose, too.

Fortunately for me, I have a life full of people who think I have a bit more worth than that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:05 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

And I think aborted children..

..had a bit more worth than that too.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:11 PM animalgirl writes:

Well, unfortunately

God doesn't seem to agree with you, considering that most conceptions don't make it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:15 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

That's a natural ending of life...

...not an ending by man.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:44 AM BrianR writes:

Hmmm...

Interesting conundrum, AG.

I'm afraid I don't have a pat answer.

I'm going to put the legal issues aside, as I think the whole abortion thing is rightfully a state issue to begin with, and Roe was bad law.

That having been said, assuming we're not talking about the legal issues, then I think the answer's going to boil down to the involved parents' own religious beliefs and morality/ethics. Basically, what can those people justify before their God when that time comes?

Cop out? Maybe. It's an ethical dilemma I'm glad I never had to face, and never will.

I hope my daughter never has to face it, either.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:37 PM ShiningCity writes:

AG

It's interesting to me, and I think relatively telling, that you DO identify yourself in your biography as a mother. But, you don't identify yourself as a wife. It's simply a matter of what you identify are your priorities.

As such, it might be instructive as to why you flatly deny any rights by fathers in the decisions about abortions.

Or I could be over-reading. I could be, but I don't think so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:44 PM ShiningCity writes:

Here's how I see this

I've seen one case since I graduated med school in 1997 where the mother's life was in danger & required an abortion to save her. And I practiced at a large urban medical university. So, if it happened often, we'd have seen it.

Truth is, most cases don't directly affect a mother's life. You're jumping off into the "what might be's". "Well, if I had a stroke, I MIGHT die, so maybe then...."

I think the patent pro-life answer would be: make yourself healthy before, and consider the potential outcomes, deciding BEFORE the pregnancy what is or is not acceptable to you. Decide BEFORE you are pregnant whether you will assume the risk of a stroke if you have severe hypertension. If you won't assume the risk of a stroke (with adherent potential death), then DON'T GET PREGNANT. You know, that is an option: NOT getting pregnant. The pro-choice community acts as though that's not ever an option: "whoopsie...! Pregnancy! Unwanted! Kill it!"

The case I saw was a very unfortuanate 20-something woman, first pregnancy. She developed a septic-picture with adherent DIC and clotting all over (doctor language--not important). SHe truly would have died, and I watched that family agonize for two days--I mean, husband on his knees in the family room, crying, beside himself) about the decision. Finally, they decided to abort the baby at 22 weeks (non-viable). Mom got better and survived.

WEre it me, in that situation, I don't know what I would do. I believe that is between the family and their God. ANd in those cases, I believe abortion should be an option. But, not for the "what if's".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:47 PM ShiningCity writes:

Here's how I see this

I've seen one case since I graduated med school in 1997 where the mother's life was in danger & required an abortion to save her. And I practiced at a large urban medical university. So, if it happened often, we'd have seen it.

Truth is, most cases don't directly affect a mother's life. You're jumping off into the "what might be's". "Well, if I had a stroke, I MIGHT die, so maybe then...."

I think the patent pro-life answer would be: make yourself healthy before, and consider the potential outcomes, deciding BEFORE the pregnancy what is or is not acceptable to you. Decide BEFORE you are pregnant whether you will assume the risk of a stroke if you have severe hypertension. If you won't assume the risk of a stroke (with adherent potential death), then DON'T GET PREGNANT. You know, that is an option: NOT getting pregnant. The pro-choice community acts as though that's not ever an option: "whoopsie...! Pregnancy! Unwanted! Kill it!"

The case I saw was a very unfortuanate 20-something woman, first pregnancy. She developed a septic-picture with adherent DIC and clotting all over (doctor language--not important). SHe truly would have died, and I watched that family agonize for two days--I mean, husband on his knees in the family room, crying, beside himself) about the decision. Finally, they decided to abort the baby at 22 weeks (non-viable). Mom got better and survived.

WEre it me, in that situation, I don't know what I would do. I believe that is between the family and their God. ANd in those cases, I believe abortion should be an option. But, not for the "what if's".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:02 PM ShiningCity writes:

Another hypothetical

Re:

What if there was only a 20% chance the cancer would progress during her pregnancy? A 50% chance? What if a woman's blood pressure skyrockets (a common occurrence) to the point that she is in grave danger of a stroke, which may or may not kill her?
_______________________________________

What if my mother causes me such stress that my blood pressure skyrockets (a common occurrence) to the point that I am in grave danger of a stroke, which may or may not kill me? Can I kill my mother?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:06 PM animalgirl writes:

BrianR

"I'm afraid I don't have a pat answer."

And I'm not surprised, Brian, since you are one of the more genuinely thoughtful people on this forum.

People who say questions like this are easy--or that questions like this are best resolved by government bureaucrats--are copping out. I'm not saying it's easy.

You wonder what they would ACTUALLY do in a situation like this (in the church I grew up in, there was a hardcore pro-life activist. And when his 15-year old daughter got knocked up, guess where he took her?)

I am always suspicious of ANY stand that requires NOTHING of the person taking it. It is extremely easy to moralize about other people's behavior. It's hard to be moral yourself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:12 PM ShiningCity writes:

AG

Let me clue you in:
Here's why you get banned.
____________

And I'm not surprised, Brian, since you are one of the more genuinely thoughtful people on this forum.
_______________________

Many people have posted very thoughtful responses to your question; but, they just haven't agreed with your position. So, you start hurling insults.

Here's my prediction, everybody's going to get pretty tired of this sort of interaction and start ignoring you. I'm busy at work and actually still take the time to try and have dialogue. Simple insulting dialogue, however, I won't take time for. So, as for me, I start now.

Good luck.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:13 PM animalgirl writes:

Shining City

If my husband ever saw me identify myself primarily as a 'wife', he would be disgusted with me.

My husband picked me in large part because of my independence (and I him). I was a whole person before my husband, and honestly, marriage changed my life only minimally, in the grand scheme of things.

Becoming a mother, however, was a sea-change like nothing else in my life. Every minute of my day is different now. I eat differently, I sleep differently, I think differently, and I can't even use the bathroom in private.

My husband is not dependent on me for every meal. He is quite capable of feeding himself, dressing himself, and using the bathroom. He puts himself to bed quite nicely without my assistance.

I will be a mother until I die. I probably won't be a wife that long, unfortunately.

So yeah, being a mother is kind of a bigger deal. And my husband wouldn't want it any other way.

My husband would also ALWAYS defer to me on a decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. He loves me, and respects my decisions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:20 PM animalgirl writes:

Shining City

I honestly have respect for your position. As a medical professional, you do understand that there is such a thing as a life-saving abortion.

I like to hear the thinking of pro-life people, and I know there ARE many thinking pro-life people.

Also, if what a said to Brian counts as a 'hurled insult', then you must be extremely sensitive. As my mother once said to me when I got jealous of my sister--'saying good things about one person doesn't mean I am saying bad things about everyone else.' I do find BrianR to be particularly thoughtful. That doesn't mean you are not; in fact, your responses have been intelligent.

I have so many vicious and unbelievable things hurled at me whenever I say anything, and I never see any of those people telling me that I should be raped or killed and go to hell get banned.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:21 PM animalgirl writes:

Not a parallel

"What if my mother causes me such stress that my blood pressure skyrockets (a common occurrence) to the point that I am in grave danger of a stroke, which may or may not kill me? Can I kill my mother?"

You have the option of cutting her out of your life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 11:22 AM BrianR writes:

Yeah, I've got to concur, SC

AG's been a long-time poster on the site, even before having her own blog. My observation has been that she's often been at the receiving end of the insults, some of them pretty vile.

The reason I like discussions with AG (hell, she's on my Blog Roll) is that she does carry on thoughtful discussions, and I also have to say I've never -- never -- seen her initiate the ad homina.



It is one thing that many of us on the Right seem to be unaware of: the tendency of many of the posters on "our side" to be very dismissive of those on the other side, and be very rude about it (to say the least). We have our equivalents of the Kimberlies and Karennkc.

The other side has some pretty good representatives here, whose participation I value, as it adds to the discussion, and keeps the place from becoming an echo chamber: AG, Tana, Inkling-revival, some others.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:01 PM BrianR writes:

Afterthought

The abortion issue will always be with us as controversial, due to the nature of its elements: religiousity, innocent life, when human life begins, prioritization of the mother and the baby, amid a host of other aspects.

To me, this is one of the defining issues of what democracy is about, and the inherent dynamic tensions of such a system.

I don't think it will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all, because it's so complex. The only type of government that can rule definitively on such an issue is a totalitarian system, where an edict is handed down from above and no debate is allowed.

Obviously, Roe was a failed attempt to accomplish this. It's also another reason why this is rightfully a state issue. This is the kind of thing federalism was invented by the Founders to address.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:02 PM BrianR writes:

PS, SC

AG's comment to me wasn't an insult or patronizing. The way I read it she was actually complimenting me (Thanks, AG).

And thanks for your kind words, too, SC.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:37 PM animalgirl writes:

You may be surprised

That I think Roe is not the best decision in the world (though not the worst). I do think the states should be able to regulate abortion to some degree.
I have no problem with state-level partial birth abortion bans.

I have a problem with the federal one, because I can't for the life of me find in the Constitution where it says the federal government has the right to regulate medical procedures. But of course, they did it in part because the right of states to do same has been unduly abridged. So it was a bad law resulting as an attempt to respond to bad precedent.

I do think there should be a limit on state's ability to restrict abortion, though. Regulating procedures, and heavily regulating third trimester abortions: ok. Forcing a woman to carry a high-risk pregnancy, or to carry the child of a rapist infringes on her right to life and liberty. And yes, when the right to life and liberty of an embryo and a fully realized human being conflict, the human being should win out.

An embryo is not a human, any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:31 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Pro life and protecting momma

I honestly go back and forth on this one, as it is a tough issue.

I come back to this, though, except in extreme cases, we are to protect the child. Why?

Well, to start, as SC stated, the times when it is that pressing to choose are rare, so the heavy weight pro-choicers put on that scenario is a bit over stated. Second, shouldn't we be consistent in its application? Third, is it better to protect an established life or to protect and give chance to someone new is difficult, and I lean to giving that new life a chance.

Finally, taking these stands are neither anti-women or anti-life. It is about taking responsibility, which many confuse with rights or whatever. Responsibility is something largely forgotten, and should be assumed by the individual, NOT the government. Parent's then, need to make the choice responsibly, to engage in behaviors that may result in something they are not ready to responsibly take on. Parents are those who engage in sex, married or not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:43 PM animalgirl writes:

Punishment

'I lean to giving that new life a chance."

Why?

What if the existing life has many other things to take responsibility for? What of the need of already living children to have a mother? Are mothers not important to a child? Isn't the 'responsible' position to take care of your young children, and not sacrificing their well-being for the sake of your own self-righteousness?

Do you think that once a woman has one child, she should never have sex again so as to avoid the risk of pregnancy?

Sorry, I know you say you are not anti-woman, but to me it all smacks of a desire to punish women for having sex at all, because of a deep-down belief that sex is evil and anyone who engages in it (especially women) deserve to suffer and/or die.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:43 PM animalgirl writes:

Punishment

'I lean to giving that new life a chance."

Why?

What if the existing life has many other things to take responsibility for? What of the need of already living children to have a mother? Are mothers not important to a child? Isn't the 'responsible' position to take care of your young children, and not sacrificing their well-being for the sake of your own self-righteousness?

Do you think that once a woman has one child, she should never have sex again so as to avoid the risk of pregnancy?

Sorry, I know you say you are not anti-woman, but to me it all smacks of a desire to punish women for having sex at all, because of a deep-down belief that sex is evil and anyone who engages in it (especially women) deserve to suffer and/or die.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:11 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

AG

It comes down to that, doesn't it: sex.

"Sorry, I know you say you are not anti-woman, but to me it all smacks of a desire to punish women for having sex at all, because of a deep-down belief that sex is evil and anyone who engages in it (especially women) deserve to suffer and/or die."

No, not at all. The father plays a role in this, too. As Jimmy was saying, the father cannot be taken out of the equation. In many ways, we have taken ourselves out, for a variety of reasons ranging from selfishness (gotta "get" that gal), to fear (I can't care for a kid), to downright apathy. But sex is not a right, for anyone, but it is a responsibility. Men, just as much as women, need to be cognizant of this truth. It is unfortunate many men treat it flippantly, but that neither makes it right nor acceptable for women to do the same.

As to married men and women, and having multiple children? Like anything, you look at it objectively. Health concerns, as much as financial, should play a role.

BTW, while I know not all birth control is 100% effective, birth control exists, so that couples can enjoy the act and limit the chances. But as I said, they are not 100% effective, so engaging in the behavior is risky, so unless the folks are willing and able to have kids, they should think twice.

But as I said earlier in this post, all too often, the debate comes down to the ability for all to engage in sexual activity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:13 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Why give a new life a chance?

Is life that expendable where we can freely choose? Someone made the argument about a child who was just born, why not cut them off? I know you say they can then live on their own, but what's really the difference? How and why is that important?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:21 PM animalgirl writes:

waste

"Is life that expendable where we can freely choose? "

No! And that's my exact point! You want to choose the new life because it makes you feel more warm and fuzzy.

But in your love of what feels nice and fuzzy as an ideology, you cause more human suffering. When there is a choice of lives to save, we should choose the person whose absence would cause the most pain and suffering for others. This is a long-standing moral principle; it's the reason women with small children are normally saved first in tragedies when possible.

You think that married men and women should abstain from sex. Not only is that anti-Biblical, it is a terrible idea. If more couples put this into practice, we would see a jump in violence and crime.

Also: I am guessing from your post that you don't think using birth control is a deviant sexual practice? The Bible does condemn wasting sperm pretty strongly...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:34 PM BrianR writes:

Interesting stuff

AG, you made an interesting statement: "An embryo is not a human, any more than an acorn is an oak tree."

At what point does it become human? At birth? Viability? 3 months? 6?

See, that's the whole crux of the debate.


As to your position on Roe, I think you reached the right conclusion from the wrong factors. The point of Federalism is to allow social experimentation at the state level to allow a diversity of lifestyles to exist and let social Darwinism take place. Tight restriction in one place could and would be countered by looser requirements in another.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was young, back in the 70s, abortion was legal in NY, Cali and some other places, and outlawed in many others. If Roe hadn't taken place, that's what we'd have ended up with: the gamut from unrestricted access to total restriction, varying from state to state. People who wanted abortions would simply travel to a locale that allowed it. That's the way it was back in the day.


One last thing. Your statement: "but to me it all smacks of a desire to punish women for having sex at all, because of a deep-down belief that sex is evil and anyone who engages in it (especially women) deserve to suffer and/or die"

This is based on what? You don't think that's hyperbole? You can't understand that to many people, this is an issue of infanticide, a belief that's sincerely held?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:56 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Is God utilitarian?

A question I have asked elsewhere... Does God care about who/what can help the most? I don't think so.

No, I never stated birth control is bad. Where do you get that? Are you assuming I think that?

I also never say married men and women should not have sex. Rather, and quite the contrary, I say that they need to be smart when they do. Use protection and common sense.

Look, no one EVER said we should be able to do everything we want when we want, and that includes doing the deed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 3:36 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Reread the thread,

Brian, and notice how she attacks herself on behalf of those with supposedly opposing views.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 4:49 PM animalgirl writes:

BrianR

"This is based on what? You don't think that's hyperbole? You can't understand that to many people, this is an issue of infanticide, a belief that's sincerely held?"

I do NOT apply this to most pro-lifers, just to ones who think that women should be forced to carry high-risk pregnancies because they place so little value on women.

As far as when a person becomes human--it's a difficult question, not best left to bureaucrats. As someone who has recently had an infant, I have a hard time seeing a newborn as human (yes, that makes many people call you horrible, but I challenge you to spend a few days with a newborn and NOT think of them as hardly more than protoplasm. It's easily to idealize things that are at arms length.)

My baby became human at around 4 months in my eyes. But to be on the safe side, I think we need to legally consider birth the beginning of humanity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 4:52 PM animalgirl writes:

Birth control

'A question I have asked elsewhere... Does God care about who/what can help the most? I don't think so.'

Jesus showed clear concern for human suffering.

I didn't know whether you thought birth control is bad or not. There are many conservatives out there who think it is; there are also a large number who think all hormonal birth control should be illegal since almost all of it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 4:58 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Is God utilitarian?

Is showing concern for suffering the same?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 4:58 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

And no, I have no problem with BC.

.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 6:21 PM BrianR writes:

Well, AG

As to your challenge to me ("I challenge you to spend a few days with a newborn and NOT think of them as hardly more than protoplasm"), I am a parent, and I have to say, that's certainly NEVER the way I considered my daughter. As a matter of fact, I'm kind of floored by that comment.

True, we don't drop foals who are running around within minutes of birth. We have a vastly more complex central nervous system, primarily the brain. Which is why Shakespeare wasn't a horse, I suppose.

Your follow up in that comment was also interesting: "My baby became human at around 4 months in my eyes. But to be on the safe side, I think we need to legally consider birth the beginning of humanity."

I guess that "safe side" is a good idea, if we want the human race to continue if a lot of people don't consider newborns "human".

When I was a kid living in Taiwan back in the late 50s (I use the time context because I don't know if the following still holds) Chinese culture didn't consider the first year of life as human existence. What we consider the 1st birthday was actually the point from which they started counting age.

Life was very cheap in the Orient in those days.

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is, but I can't agree with your "human at birth" assessment. IMO, viability is the absolutely latest point at which I'd consider the unborn as being a human being deserving of legal rights and protection.

At that point, abortion is no longer necessary, as the baby can be removed and maintained medically. IMO, "partial birth" abortion is murder. It's also horrendous. I find it abhorrent that a "civilized" society would countenance it.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:12 PM animalgirl writes:

BrianR

Yeah, I've had people who were shocked by that comment before. Often dads, and often people with grown children. I know how horrible it sounds. And it didn't stop me from putting everything in my life on hold, including sleeping, bathing and feeding myself, for those first few weeks while

Never new moms. They'll just nod their heads. But maybe it's the severe sleep deprivation that does it to you. Not getting more than 2:30 hours of continuous sleep for a few weeks makes you see the world in all sorts of new ways.

"I guess that "safe side" is a good idea, if we want the human race to continue if a lot of people don't consider newborns "human".

Well, we survived for a few millennia with that cheap view of life. Part of it is for sanity's sake--you can't get too attached to something that has a 50% chance of dying, or you will get overwhelmed with grief and not be able to continue living.

Which is one disservices I think the 'life at conception' hard-liners due to women--women can now find out they are pregnant so, so early, at a point when half of 'pregnancies' are going to fail. And some of them go through immense heartbreak, more intense if they feel they are supposed to grieve as if they lost a child.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:16 PM animalgirl writes:

Virginia Daddy

God is no Jeremy Bentham, who considered nothing but maximizing utility. But I think when you have to choose between two evils, choosing the evil that causes the least suffering is the most moral choice in almost all cases; lessen the evil caused when possible. It is immoral to leave children without parents.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:11 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Ah, but I don't think God cares a wink

about utility. God cares that we honor him by doing what is right in his eyes. If you assume abortion is murder, as I do with many others, abortion by any name is murder.

I will say this, might there be times when a difficult choice has to be made? Sure. Honestly, I don't know what I'd do if I were forced to choose, but I know the decision would be made much prayer. I think, though, the only time I could allow an abortion is this: if mom surely would die, and baby would have a very hard time living health wise. In other words, if baby were to be severely disabled or ill. God willing, none of us will have to go through that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 1:32 AM BrianR writes:

Sorry, AG, NO SALE!!!

I spent just as much time as my then-wife dealing with the 2AM feedings, the cholic, no sleep, rocking my kid, the first week in the hospital with the RH factor disorder, and everything else. Added into the fact that I also had to show up for work to put bread on the table.

Neither of us got any more sleep than the other.

Very facile trying to paint mothers as default sacrificers in the care of newborns, but in this day and age that's a falsehood.



Also, your assertion that newborns have a 50% mortality factor is simply ludicrous in modern America.


Now, what I do find interesting is that apparently you had no bond with your child at birth, and it had to develop over time; perhaps that's why you can be so pro-abortion. And maybe that's the difference with anti-abortionists.

I know I certainly can't understand your point of view on that. Frankly, in all honesty, I find it inhuman.

I was in love with my daughter before she was anywhere near being born; before I even knew she was a SHE.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 7:48 AM animalgirl writes:

BrianR

My husband is a wonderful man and an involved father, but even he admitted that things were in no way equal in the first months. The problem was, he couldn't feed the baby. He could be supportive, he could help me out, but there was no point for him to get up at 1, then 4, then 7, because he couldn't do what needed to be done. Things may have changed, but pediatricians are now giving strict instructions to no give any bottles for at least the first three weeks, as it can sabotage breastfeeding.

And while he went off to work (which of course, we needed him to do), I stayed in the house all day with baby that needed almost constant holding and feeding and walking. I took to eating two or three Carnation instant breakfasts a day, since that's what I could easily eat while walking, as I was unable to sit for more than a few minutes at a time.

I was not saying newborns have a 50% mortality factor. I was saying that for most of human history, that has been the case. Newborns have a very low mortality factor now.

And as I said, I had a bond with my daughter, or I wouldn't have given up my entire life to take care of her. I had to begin to alter my life for 40 weeks before she was born. But I am not a romantic. When you spend all day with a creature that does not even look at you, that is a creature of pure and unadulterated id with almost no awareness of themselves or the world around them, it's hard to see them as human.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 9:42 AM animalgirl writes:

Also...

Why does something have to be human in order for me to bond with it? I am quite significantly bonded with my dog, cats, and parrot (which is a good thing, as my parrot will be with me long after my toddler leaves for college). I spent $1400 on life-saving surgery for my cat when I was a grad student making $650 a month; I have been getting up at dawn to tend to me crowing African Grey since long before my baby was around to disturb my sleep.

Why does something have to be human in order for you to love it? When I say she wasn't human, I wasn't saying I cared nothing for her or for her welfare. Just that she did not exhibit the characteristics I think of as human in any way--my parrot was far more complex emotionally and had a much greater ability to communicate than my newborn--shoot, the dog had more emotional sentience. That's just reality.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 11:34 AM BrianR writes:

Well, AG

Perhaps you should use the adjective "mature" rather than "human", or something similar. "Human" has a very distinct definition and connotation, and your usage of it may have inaccurately conveyed your intent. I know it did for me, because I took it to mean "animal-like". And I don't equate humans at all with any other animals.

As to the hubby participation, your assertion's based on your own experience, as is mine. So I'm sure there's no absolute standard.

What I do know is I lost just as much sleep each night, and while I was working away my ex could catch daytime naps.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 09, 2007 12:22 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

My brother just had his first

A few weeks back, and he is quoted as saying that if the child did not stop crying, he would throw him out the window. Would he ever do so? Would you, AG?

We all know the frustration, but I have to agree with Brian. And let me ask this, as well, does it have to be about you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 09, 2007 10:59 PM animalgirl writes:

Funny

My sister is a developmental psychologist, and sees lots of new moms with their babies. She says that almost to a one, all new moms express the desire, specifically, to throw their babies out the window. No one wants to beat or suffocate their babies (these are healthy moms, after all), but just to toss it away from them).

And of course I never did it, or I wouldn't have my current toddler. And as the mother of a toddler, I have to tell you, NOTHING is about me anymore. And I would give up just about anything for my daughter.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 8:40 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

So what's your point?

In saying life does not begin until four months?

You do agree, then, that life begins before then?

I ask the question about it being about you because you seem to think this because the limited reactions and interactions with the child. This indicates, perhaps naturally, that it is you who is not satisfied with what you get out of the child...

And I know about the loss of time, energy, everything in those first few months. My wife, with both of our children, unsuccesfully tried to breat feed. That was trying on more than one level...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:21 AM animalgirl writes:

It's not about my interactions

It's about recognizing what the child is, or is not. The question comes down to: what does it mean to be human? What makes us human? Is a complete set of human DNA all that it takes? If it's all about the DNA, does that mean chimpanzees are 98.8% human? Or does it mean that those with deficient DNA are deficient human beings?

Is there not something more than DNA? Is there not the spark of consciousness that makes us human? Is it when the soul enters the body (none of us knows when that happens)?

Humanity, and personhood, is more than just life. Sperm are clearly alive, and they are not monkey sperm, or elephant sperm, but human sperm. And there are some who DO consider it a life worth valuing (and why some consider it a sin to waste it).

We all have our own philosophies on this, and it is not cut-and-dried. Some people do believe that a complete set of DNA is all it takes for a human to be human. I think consciousness and the soul, the things that truly set us apart from other animals (after all, they all have DNA too, strikingly similar to ours).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:49 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

Babies Personalities

So you don't think babies have personalities? And are personalities indicative of a soul? Are personalities indiciative of consciousness? On what do you base that conclusions?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 12:00 PM animalgirl writes:

My animals

For a while, I had two cats, and their personalities were incredibly distinct. I have also taken care of countless exotic birds, which have personalities as distinct as human beings, even among the same species.

So do they have souls, and consciousness?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 12:22 PM ShiningCity writes:

Brian

Ref: my exit to this discussion.

I don't think she was insulting you. She was insulting ME. I had been posting several answers prior to yours; therefore, I must be the "thoughtless" one.

Yes, I agree that the Right has a lot of crazy screaming maniacs representing us, and you know I don't support that perspective either. Therefore, I'd like ALL speech to remain above-board. Starting with calling the people who actually visit one's site & care to comment "thoughtless" isn't exactly endearing oneself to readers, nor is it refraining from ad homina. I just came back to defend my position.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 1:09 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

But human babies

Do they grow into cats?

And on this, its beginning to look a lot like this could go on and on...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 1:34 PM animalgirl writes:

Of course they don't

Though some might try very, very hard (I personally was hoping to grow into a dog until I abandoned that goal around 8).

But your comment was that personality was indicative of a soul. I was simply saying that personality is not normally considered indicative of a soul, unless you believe dogs and cats and birds have souls. Why would personality in a human indicate a soul, if personality does not normally indicate a soul? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 2:08 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

I believe cats have souls

Albeit of a different nature, but a soul nonetheless.

And here's my point: babies are indeed human, and are human before birth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 2:32 PM animalgirl writes:

Ah!

I have found that many pro-lifers are very opposed to the idea of souls of any kind for animals. But we have found a point on which we agree; I do believe that animals have souls. I have had too many close friendships with animals to think otherwise. Besides, I have a remarkably sensitive (and neurotic) little psittacine who has formed a pair-bond with me, and will probably be with me in the nursing home, long after my human partner has departed.

But on the topic of people with souls; it's possible you are right. I am not positive what makes a human human; personality alone is not enough, since non-humans clearly have personality. I know that a sperm is not a human, and I am strongly doubtful that an embryo with no brain is a human.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 3:01 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

No, I think they do.

I am not your typical conservative, I think, for better or for worse.... :)

And your questions presented, for whatever it is worth, is why I tend to be pro-life: until we can conclusively answer, we must act cautiously.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 2:12 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

How is the pregnancy going

anyway? Hopefully, all is progressing well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 4:22 PM animalgirl writes:

Done with first trimester

So the exhaustion is clearing up. Getting a check-up tomorrow.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 4:42 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Ah, done with hard part #1

And entering the easy part...

I tell ya, I am not envious of what you ladies have to go through...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 2:07 PM BrianR writes:

Okay, blog plug for moi.


A brand-spanking new essay up at the Island.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 3:53 PM Christopher writes:

Glad

Animalgirl, so you are going to keep the baby? If so, I'm glad to hear it. Of course, if you wanted to get an abortion it would be understandable. There are no good solutions when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, you continue through and poss. deal with the complications, you terminate and you deal with the emotional aftermath. If I were in your shoes, I don't think I would have the courage to continue with the pregnancy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 7:44 PM BrianR writes:

AG

I just wanted to drop by your place and thank you for your great comments at my place. Really terrific stuff, on a very difficult issue.

BTW, just so you know, I think that -- based on what you wrote there -- you're not as "liberal" as you make out. You have a pretty good head on those shoulders.

True rad-libs are unthinking drones. Kinda like some we've got on our side of the aisle.

LOL
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:11 PM mgraves writes:

AG

I won't enter the discussion as it's been hashed from every angle and I doubt I could reasonably add anything to it.

I just wanted to make a point about the use of language. One of your first visitors used the terms "homicide" and "murder" seemingly interchangeably.

A homicide is the killing of one human by another human. A murder is a homicide proscribed by law.

Soldiers who die in war are homicide victims, but not murder victims. Abortion is not murder because there are virtually no circumstances where it is proscibed by law.

Secondly, the use of the term "pro-life" (and its supposed opposite, "pro-choice") is loaded language and is an attempt to stack the deck preemptively. I know that was not your intent, but the point remains.

I am anti-abortion (with the mother's life exception). I could give you my reasoning, but it's a 15 page paper I wrote for a class in Ethics 5 years ago and I doubt I could find it. (In other words, this is a very sticky subject, which you note, and it does not readily lend itself to this format). Of course, my saying it is a sticky subject does not mean that I'm grey area guy here, but merely to acknowledge that it is a subject on which people have strongly held opinions (just like many policy questions--my crack at the Roe v Wade decision).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:15 PM animalgirl writes:

Both sides

have their crazy radicals. Part of what makes me define myself as a liberal is my religion--I am a Quaker, therefore pacifist, and therefore there is no room for me in the conservative big tent.

So in a way, I understand how conservative Christians have so much enmity toward Democrats, because their platforms threaten their theology. Republican positions threaten mine.

I read the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Nation, and the New Republic. The New Republic is the closest to my ideology (though I know they have had some editorial problems). The Nation is too left for me. Can't stand Kos. But right-wing pundits make me want to throw up.

Thanks for being a rational voice on the right!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 11:07 PM animalgirl writes:

Christopher

It was a rhetorical only (if my retinas had attached, I wouldn't be able to post). I am high risk for retinal detachment, but it hasn't happened yet, and hopefully won't. Not when I'm pregnant, not ever!

But this baby is very wanted. And if I had a critical medical problem after 24 weeks, I would do a C-section and take on the burden of a disabled baby.

And I didn't even do the first trimester screens for Down's Syndrome, because I would have a Down's Syndrome baby.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 11:05 AM BrianR writes:

AG, I don't think I agree

Being a Friend doesn't make you unwelcome on the Right. Now that I know that, actually I think you're more attuned to Right than Left values.

There's more to conservatism than just war, y'know.

BTW, don't forget that Sgt Alvin York was also a Friend.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 6:28 PM Savage99 writes:

This truly is a time for choice

All i can offer is my own feelings. Given that just as a man has responsibilities after a delivery, he has a participating role prior to an abortion, in this particular case i would defer to my wife. Our first child was an adoption, and i can say although i have a conventional child there is no real difference in my heart between them. If she wanted a child so badly the risk seemed worth it to her , i'd go along. If she didn't want to go through with it, i'd support that. Engineer-wise, if it were my eyes, i would consider the odds. 100,000 to 1 against retina detachment, I'd go for it. 2 to 1. Not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 6:45 PM Savage99 writes:

AG, Jimmy_Carter

One of the unfair aspects of abortion is it robs 2 people of offspring, but current law allows one to make the decision on her own. The father does not even have to be told. To expand upon your limited specific case question, AG, i think i see where jimmy is coming from. If a woman can choose to have or not have a child, should not a man have the same choices? Then we run into the obvious. Men and women are biologically different with different biological roles. Up jumps the double standard, at which many women activists scream "unfair" "Cultural Fascism" "we want equality" and so on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 8:29 PM animalgirl writes:

Equality

"Up jumps the double standard, at which many women activists scream "unfair" "Cultural Fascism" "we want equality" and so on."

And I think those women are morons. I didn't cry 'inequality' when I had to get up for midnight feedings and the hubby didn't. He didn't have the equipment. And I had all these hormone changes that frankly made it easier for me to get up several times a night. If I want to complain about inequality, I need to take it up with God, not my poor husband.

People need to be rational. It is not rational for women to complain about 'inequality' in pregnancy. Likewise, it is not rational for men to complain about 'equality' in abortion decisions.

Hey, I'd give men equality if I could, but I doubt they would want it.

And hey, good for you for being able to accept an adopted child as your own. I think it's harder for men, again because of biological differences. My husband was adopted, and unfortunately, grew up with a 'father' who was always telling him 'you're not really my son.'
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 7:03 AM Greg England writes:

Hello

Difficult question - good luck with that one!

I have come here from this website:
http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/

Let me say from the outset that I'm not a liberal. However, your posts are intellectually honest. So I would enjoy meeting you again on townhall, and like Dennis Prager says "seek clarity rather than agreement"

Incidentally, have you thought about ringing up the Dennis Prager show and posing your question? Or sending him an email?

He may even have discussed this on one of his Ultimate Issues hours.

http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/show.aspx?radioshowid=3
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 9:19 AM animalgirl writes:

Prager

Thanks for calling me intellectually honest. I try my hardest. Dedicating one's life to 'seeking' is pretty much the central tenet of my faith.

I am of two minds about Prager. I sometimes think his moral reasoning is quite sound, but I sometimes feel he gets clouded by his desire to support a certain side politically. Of course, we all can fall prey to that a bit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 10:23 AM Greg England writes:

Not a problem though

"Of course, we all can fall prey to that a bit."

I agree, and the trick is to be an ideologue without being a demagogue.

I am personally suspicious of people who aren't ideologues - I don't see it as a pejorative term. We all have different opinions about life, and some of them we hold stronger than others.

The great strength of democracy is obviously that we can put our opinions out into a debating arena, and let the debating process come to a set of values that are most acceptable to the majority.

It's the best compromise that we have, and at least it's flexible enough to respond to changes in circumstances.

Anyway - I'm off to get a bite to eat; catch you later.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 9:36 PM BrianR writes:

AG, Greg

Well, AG, Greg came here from my blog, so I guess you owe me a referral fee or something. After all, I'm a die-hard capitalist!

LOL

Greg, I agree with your analysis re: ideologue.

Anybody who doesn't have opinions for which he/she will argue must not have a brain.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 10:39 PM animalgirl writes:

BrianR

True, but: you should be able to change those opinions in the face of facts. And the scary ideologues are the ones who pursue their ideology despite all evidence proving them wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 5:53 AM Greg England writes:

Animal Girl

"True, but: you should be able to change those opinions in the face of facts."

The problem comes when people relentlessly try to change your opinions by choosing a bunch of facts that fit their political outlook.

I get exposed to that all the time.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion, merely in expressing my own and listening to other opinions.

I wrote an essay on the "myth of the apolitical" because I realise that there are some people out there who think that they are opinion-less i.e. that everyone who doesn't share their worldview must be converted to the truth.

For example, you can get that with aggressive (and I mean, very aggressive) atheism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 6:26 AM Greg England writes:

Anyway

Animal Girl - I have posted some more debating points on BrianR's site which you might find interesting:

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/

How you decide to run your future health care model is none of my business. However, I thought it would be interesting to provide another perspective to the debate.

My personal view is that this is one of those issues that isn't as simple as private vs. public, because both systems have their flaws.

UK politicians from both Labour and Conservative parties recognise this, but they are really struggling to reform our socialist NHS model.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 9:51 AM animalgirl writes:

Debate

"The problem comes when people relentlessly try to change your opinions by choosing a bunch of facts that fit their political outlook."

Why is that a problem? That is the very heart of open and honest debate! You shouldn't be pushy, of course, but if you see a real and glaring truth, you should work to get other people to light; there's nothing wrong with trying to convince other people of something, especially if it is true. A lot of good has been done in this world by people working to change hearts and minds.

And if someone is coming to you with real facts, you shouldn't so easily dismiss them; maybe their facts are closely cherry-picked, but you should always be open to being proved wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 11:26 AM Greg England writes:

Animal Girl

"Why is that a problem?"

I'm not talking about debate.

I'm talking about when I'm sat there, minding my own business, and someone comes up to me, with a scowl on their face, and proceeds to attempt to ram their pet cause into my head.

Note: the pet causes change every few years.

It happens in the UK all the time.

It's utterly Totalitarian. I'm minding my own business. I've already worked out what my values are, and it's not as if I'm not exposed 24 hours a day to a particular worldview via the BBC.

I come to Townhall.com because there are NO conservative debating forums that I can access in the UK. It's all gone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 11:33 AM Greg England writes:

Refuge

".. there's nothing wrong with trying to convince other people of something, especially if it is true."

My point is that I just want to be left alone. I've had enough.

I visit Townhall to vent off the frustrations of the week, when someone at work has got upset with me for filling the kettle 1 inch too high (save the planet).

Or someone at work gets upset because when I bought my lunch I put my sandwiches in the thinnest of thin plastic bags (save the planet).

Or when someone at work spends 30 minutes railing into me because I am a Christian.

I just want to get on with my work.

I don't even go to church, but because I don't ascribe to the Dawkins worldview (i.e. people are robots) I must be converted.

I have had to make specific complaints at work to get these people to leave me alone. It's utterly unacceptable - it's a form of bullying.

That's what the UK is about.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 11:40 AM Greg England writes:

Anyway

I'm sorry about my strindent rant-a-rooney.

I brought something to your blog that doesn't belong to you. Nothing personal you understand.

My complaint is not about left-wingers or liberals. It's about militants.

:o) smiles to be friendly
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 1:05 PM BrianR writes:

LOL, guys

That was very funny.

Greg, your BP must now be about 30 points lower!

AG, I also agree with what you wrote, and I have changed my mind about issues from time to time as valid arguments, facts, or changes in circumstances or conditions have made me reassess and re-examine my positions. But sometimes I haven't, if I found the arguments/whatever wanting.

However, certain core values are pretty much carved in concrete because I feel they're based on universdal truths, such as my basic conservatism.

Just for clarification.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 23, 2007 1:34 PM dbz77 writes:

Jimbo

It is lawful to kill someone who poses an unjust threat to life or limb - that includes eyesight.

And since the entire thesis of the pro-life argument is that the same ethics apply to the killing of unborn as the killing of born...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive