Political Crossfire Forums

[Blinky]

I know.
I said you're using talk of calculus to avoid having to.

[Obilisk18]

Lumina wrote: I'd still appreciate a definition of "absolutist" that provides meaningful stats on how many of those who are pro-life are ranked in this category.
TIA.

I agree. From the very vague definition of this term I've seen expoused so far, I'd imagine less then 5% of the population is an "absolutionist". And I'm certainly not among them as I support some exceptions.

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: Lumina wrote: I'd still appreciate a definition of "absolutist" that provides meaningful stats on how many of those who are pro-life are ranked in this category.
TIA.

I agree. From the very vague definition of this term I've seen expoused so far, I'd imagine less then 5% of the population is an "absolutionist". And I'm certainly not among them as I support some exceptions.

I would agree as well. Taking it from the other end of the spectrum, there are those who would even advocate for partial-birth abortions, of which I am not one of because I do support some restrictions.

[Casualtie]

an absolutist when it pertains to abortion is someone who believes abortion is wrong in any case. no matter what, we should never take the life of a baby. even if it is to save the life of the mother.

[Casualtie]

Varyag wrote: Why do pro-death people like to present outlandish, extremely rare or outright impossible scenarios to support their cause? Becuase 99% of abortions are carried out on healthy children by mothers who were not raped.

i'm not speaking out to promote pro-life, i'm trying to show people how ridiculous it is to be an absolutist. despite the unlikeliness of what i've presented, who's to say that it has never happened. im not trying to make pro-choices into pro-lifes, what i've stated hear has nothing against pro-choices.

and no. 99% of abortions are not carried out on mothers who have been raped. what about all those mothers out there who become pregnant just because they are unself-controlled sluts? i'm sure thats probably the majority of the cases.

[Lumina]

Casualtie wrote: an absolutist when it pertains to abortion is someone who believes abortion is wrong in any case. no matter what, we should never take the life of a baby. even if it is to save the life of the mother.

Given that definition, I'd wonder if even one % of the population falls into this category.

[Korimyr the Rat]

CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Only because it is correct. The mother could go on to bear and raise many more babies, and hopefully healthy ones; the child, if it survived at all, would be incapable of raising children and ill-suited even for bearing them.

I reject your notion that all human life is of equal value, because it flies in the face of all logic and because it ignores the simple fact that all value is subjective.

[Blinky]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Only because it is correct. The mother could go on to bear and raise many more babies, and hopefully healthy ones; the child, if it survived at all, would be incapable of raising children and ill-suited even for bearing them.

I reject your notion that all human life is of equal value, because it flies in the face of all logic and because it ignores the simple fact that all value is subjective.

Well said.

[Green]

LostSoul3412 wrote: You're preaching to the choir. Most whom argue for the "pro-life" movement grant exceptions in an effort to save the life of the mother.

Percisely, anybody will choose to save one life instead of having two people die.

[Lumina]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Only because it is correct. The mother could go on to bear and raise many more babies, and hopefully healthy ones; the child, if it survived at all, would be incapable of raising children and ill-suited even for bearing them.

I reject your notion that all human life is of equal value, because it flies in the face of all logic and because it ignores the simple fact that all value is subjective.

After reading this, I'm relieved to know that God hasn't resigned His position.

There are various degrees and kinds of retardation; mental disability does not necessarily mean that a person is unable to rear children. But for the sake of argument, let's agree that retarded children are "unhealthy." In fact, let's make your hypothetical child profoundly retarded, which, of course, would be a great tragedy.

That still leaves you suggesting that children are interchangable pieces rather than uniquely created individuals. One individual cannot ever be a substitute or replacement for another.

I'm hoping that you are very, very young, perhaps still in high school, and that you aren't a parent yourself.

[Casualtie]

judging by some of the respones i've gotten from this i'd say that there is defenately some % of people who are absolutists.

[Lumina]

Casualtie wrote: judging by some of the respones i've gotten from this i'd say that there is defenately some % of people who are absolutists.

So I'm right, aren't I?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Lumina wrote: After reading this, I'm relieved to know that God hasn't resigned His position.

If he deserved the position, he wouldn't be foisting off malformed atrocities on innocent, well-meaning mothers-to-be. If he wasn't doing so on a depressingly frequent basis, you and I wouldn't be having this argument.

Lumina wrote: That still leaves you suggesting that children are interchangable pieces rather than uniquely created individuals.

Until they are taken in by a family-- their birth family or otherwise-- and given their family's name... they are. An infant has no moral value whatsoever until named; they're worth only what a prospective family would give for the privilege.

Lumina wrote: I'm hoping that you are very, very young, perhaps still in high school, and that you aren't a parent yourself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, though you may be pleased to note that I am not a parent yet. There are things I must do before I am prepared to start a family.

[Lumina]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Lumina wrote: After reading this, I'm relieved to know that God hasn't resigned His position.

If he deserved the position, he wouldn't be foisting off malformed atrocities on innocent, well-meaning mothers-to-be. If he wasn't doing so on a depressingly frequent basis, you and I wouldn't be having this argument.

Lumina wrote: That still leaves you suggesting that children are interchangable pieces rather than uniquely created individuals.

Until they are taken in by a family-- their birth family or otherwise-- and given their family's name... they are. An infant has no moral value whatsoever until named; they're worth only what a prospective family would give for the privilege.

Lumina wrote: I'm hoping that you are very, very young, perhaps still in high school, and that you aren't a parent yourself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, though you may be pleased to note that I am not a parent yet. There are things I must do before I am prepared to start a family.

Sorry that you think that babies with malformations are atrocities. So sorry. I know parents who regard their "malformed" children as great gifts and blessings.

I don't know what else to say to someone who regards uniquely created individuals as interchangeable pieces except that there must be hope if you use the term "privilege."

Glad too that you haven't started a family, and I do predict that if you do, your view will change.

[Obilisk18]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Lumina wrote: After reading this, I'm relieved to know that God hasn't resigned His position.

If he deserved the position, he wouldn't be foisting off malformed atrocities on innocent, well-meaning mothers-to-be. If he wasn't doing so on a depressingly frequent basis, you and I wouldn't be having this argument.

Astonishing. That you would characterize the disabled and retarded as "malformed attrocities" speaks quite clearly to the tenor of the argument that all those in the pro-life community labor against. I can conjure few thoughts and fewer words to describe the horror which your utilitarian, eugenical, dsytopic vision of "worth" instills in me.

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Lumina wrote: That still leaves you suggesting that children are interchangable pieces rather than uniquely created individuals.

Until they are taken in by a family-- their birth family or otherwise-- and given their family's name... they are. An infant has no moral value whatsoever until named; they're worth only what a prospective family would give for the privilege.



Lumina wrote: I'm hoping that you are very, very young, perhaps still in high school, and that you aren't a parent yourself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, though you may be pleased to note that I am not a parent yet. There are things I must do before I am prepared to start a family.

I've never ascribed to a policy of enforced sterilization. Indeed, I can never reach the end of The Republic without a shudder of revulsion, fear, and apprehension. I suppose I've chosen to believe that we make our own destiny - that the sins of the father, whether a product of genetic happenstance or conscious choice, do not pass on to son. But I must say, I can now understand the impulse.

[Lumina]

"Eugenical" and "dystopic" pretty much say it all.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Obilisk18 wrote: Astonishing. That you would characterize the disabled and retarded as "malformed attrocities" speaks quite clearly to the tenor of the argument that all those in the pro-life community labor against.

Oh, don't flatter yourself. The majority of "pro-lifers" are far more preoccupied with arguing against liberal attitudes towards sexuality than anything having to do with the health of the next generation.

Obilisk18 wrote: I can conjure few thoughts and fewer words to describe the horror which your utilitarian, eugenical, dystopic vision of "worth" instills in me.

I'm sorry to have you at such disadvantage, then. I'm capable of conjuring quite a few words for the contempt I feel for the irresponsible, nonsensical notion that a deformed fetus is worth anything even approaching the same value as its healthy, fertile mother.

I will leave aside the issue of your temptation to have me sterilized. I'll only note that I have never suggested that anyone be forcibly sterilized, nor that any prenate or neonate be aborted against its mother's will.

[Lumina]

[quote="Korimyr the Rat"] Oh, don't flatter yourself. The majority of "pro-lifers" are far more preoccupied with arguing against liberal attitudes towards sexuality than anything having to do with the health of the next generation.

And you know this...how? Support for your claim please?

Korimyr the Rat wrote: I'm sorry to have you at such disadvantage, then. I'm capable of conjuring quite a few words for the contempt I feel for the irresponsible, nonsensical notion that a deformed fetus is worth anything even approaching the same value as its healthy, fertile mother.

I believe you misinterpreted what Obilisk was saying. What he wasn't saying, LOL, was that he had few words at his disposal while you have more.

And your application of the term "value," again, says it all. If you apply any external value--let's say, "age"--then you're arguing a point I don't think you intend to argue.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Lumina wrote: And you know this...how? Support for your claim please?

I do not need to provide support for that claim-- we are sitting in a forum full of it, and I am certain you have access to any number of forums upon which abortion issues are argued.

Simply sit through and read through a few arguments. Don't get involved, and don't decide whether they're right or not-- just sit, read, and pay attention to how much of the arguments center around sexual "improprieties".

Lumina wrote: And your application of the term "value," again, says it all. If you apply any external value--let's say, "age"--then you're arguing a point I don't think you intend to argue.

I stand by it.

And by value, I am referring to one of two things-- which in both cases, the mother wins-- either the moral value of an established member of society, or the evolutionary value of a healthy, sexually mature female.

[Lumina]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Lumina wrote: And you know this...how? Support for your claim please?

I do not need to provide support for that claim-- we are sitting in a forum full of it, and I am certain you have access to any number of forums upon which abortion issues are argued.

Simply sit through and read through a few arguments. Don't get involved, and don't decide whether they're right or not-- just sit, read, and pay attention to how much of the arguments center around sexual "improprieties".

Lumina wrote: And your application of the term "value," again, says it all. If you apply any external value--let's say, "age"--then you're arguing a point I don't think you intend to argue.

I stand by it.

And by value, I am referring to one of two things-- which in both cases, the mother wins-- either the moral value of an established member of society, or the evolutionary value of a healthy, sexually mature female.

In other words, you can't provide support for your claim.

Papa, don't preach. I've spent my entire adult life thinking about this issue. And, BTW, did I mention that I'm a woman? I obviously have far more interest vested in this issue than any man would because I have borne (no pun intended) the consequences of pregnancy. I was actually alive and sexually active when Roe vs. Wade was passed, LOL.

But thanks for tipping your sick hand once again by saying that "the mother WINS." Way to play. OMG, as if life and death are merely a little "game" to be "won." Obviously, the biggest, baddest mother in the valley has a better shot at "winning." One real point is that a society is only as strong as its weakest "links"--the elderly, the disabled, and the very young. Obelisk called it right.