Hookers and unwanted babies don't exist in the minds of fundamentalists. Or they shouldn't. Making abortion illegal will stamp out prostitution too!
(Yeah, like the Oldest Profession is going anywhere.)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Virtue Media anti-abortion spiel
Virtue Media anti-abortion spielFollow
CoalHeart wrote:
*****? Mother@#%^er? haha, now that put a smile on my face. I do love children.
Tch, don't be a ************, *****.
Quote:
He's 19. He is an adult and has the right to think what he wants. Hell, what makes him any less correct in his beliefs/assumptions than you?
ed Text
ed Text
Various people have made this point. The point is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Nothing makes him less correct. What makes him more correct? How does my disagreeing with him deprive him of the right to think what he wants?
Following that reasoning, I would never say anything to him about what I think about anything ... it's equally stupid to censor myself and to deprive my son of exposure to a different point of view just because my 19-year old son MIGHT have a better perspective on abortion than I do.
My son and I enjoy academic discussions. We argue with each other for the joy of exploring a subject and honing our ability to think critically. Maybe you think it's less annoying for me to either not respond at all or respond with "how nice" and leave it at that. Are you afraid of discussing controversial topics and honestly sharing different points of view with your parents? If so, that's sad.
My point in the OP was to see what approaches others might take to presenting their point and try to find one that would reduce the small risk of him feeling attacked.
Ahkuraj wrote:
Quote:
He's 19. He is an adult and has the right to think what he wants. Hell, what makes him any less correct in his beliefs/assumptions than you?
ed Text
ed Text
Various people have made this point. The point is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Nothing makes him less correct. What makes him more correct? How does my disagreeing with him deprive him of the right to think what he wants?
Following that reasoning, I would never say anything to him about what I think about anything ... it's equally stupid to censor myself and to deprive my son of exposure to a different point of view just because my 19-year old son MIGHT have a better perspective on abortion than I do.
My son and I enjoy academic discussions. We argue with each other for the joy of exploring a subject and honing our ability to think critically. Maybe you think it's less annoying for me to either not respond at all or respond with "how nice" and leave it at that. Are you afraid of discussing controversial topics and honestly sharing different points of view with your parents? If so, that's sad.
My point in the OP was to see what approaches others might take to presenting their point and try to find one that would reduce the small risk of him feeling attacked.
Sigh, gone are the days of simply taking away the Nintendo to get them to mind.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Since when did expressing disagreement with someone constitute attacking them? Does that make the asylum a war zone?
Edited, Mar 25th 2009 1:13pm by Ahkuraj
Edited, Mar 25th 2009 1:13pm by Ahkuraj
Ahkuraj wrote:
My point in the OP was to see what approaches others might take to presenting their point and try to find one that would reduce the small risk of him feeling attacked.
I would see what literature the pro-choice folk have, and give that to him. Once he has seen the extremes, then use your own appeals. Key things to hone in on:
1. Proper use of the term "genocide."
2. Obvious back-patting use of Henry Hyde's name (who is he?)
3. Actual statistics. The listed info said 50 million a year, which seems large to me, but I've done no research. Also find out how many of those are done in America, where any actions taken by your son's group might actually have an effect. See if you can find out how many "illegal" abortions there are.
4. Show reports that predict the effect of outlawing abortion.
5. Research the effects of comprehensive sex education and birth control use on abortion rates and teen pregnancy. I'm taking an educated guess that when access to these are restricted, both go up. Bonus points: find how abstinence-only education affects these rates.
6. Ask him the "guilty" questions. He's Catholic, he should understand guilt, and it might work. What happens if the mother's life is in danger? What if the woman was raped? Underage? What if the mother has no way to care for the child? Knowing the adoption system in this country is pretty bad, is adoption really the best option?
Ask his opinions, honestly that's the best way. You might not change his mind, but he's a grown-up and can make his own decisions. He may only have one point of view right now, so at least giving him an alternative is good.
Quote:
2. Obvious back-patting use of Henry Hyde's name (who is he?)
Wow. I assumed it was a mangling of Henry Jekyll + Edward Hyde until you asked that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Henry Hyde was a House Rep from the Chicago area. I missed whatever was said about him so I don't know how he fits into this thread.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ahkuraj wrote:
Since when did expressing disagreement with someone constitute attacking them? Does that make the asylum a war zone?
It's more of a cold war until someone figures out a way of killing someone over the internet.
Edited, Mar 25th 2009 5:32pm by Kavekk
Jophiel wrote:
Henry Hyde was a House Rep from the Chicago area. I missed whatever was said about him so I don't know how he fits into this thread.
But he was named after Henry Jekyll, right?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Ahkuraj wrote:
Since when did expressing disagreement with someone constitute attacking them?
You said you didn't want him to feel like he's under attack. But you also said that the two of you have academic conversations all the time. So....why would he feel attacked in this conversation if it has not been an issue before.
I guess what I'm thinking, but what you're not saying is his beliefs on this issue bother you enough that you'd like to try and change them. So, I'd probably outright attack his beliefs with the strongest arguments you can. I think it's important that he understand how important this is to YOU - and why of course.
...or let it go and likely in a year or two he'll hold an opinion that's 180degrees from the one he holds today.
Quote:
Does that make the asylum a war zone?
Edited, Mar 25th 2009 9:11pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Aren't asylums the places you run to for safety?
No. You can be granted or seek asylum in a specific place (i.e. church or an embassy), but they don't call the place you go an asylum.
Elinda,
Oh! Now I get your point. Thanks.
I do feel strongly about people who want to call abortion murder, let alone genocide. The extreme religious right is probably one of the most important factors in my refusal to call myself a conservative -- because they've hijacked the term. Every time I see something like this I lean more to the left.
On a related note, a hate group calling themselves Westboro Baptist Church is staging a protest at my daughter's school on Monday. Google them. Their website made me sick.
I guess I don't so much have a problem with him believing abortion is bad. I do want him to learn a healthy skepticism about chain emails preaching extreme positions. And if he's going to take a stand, I'd like to know he's considered the arguments on all sides. I have to ask him, "If it's bad and you're not advocating bombing clinics, what are you advocating?"
When he recently converted to Catholicism, our old banter became more difficult. He made a remark about Catholicism being the true Christianity and the Pope being infallible in matters of faith and when I tried to engage he basically decided I was blindly attacking anything connected to his beliefs. So I want to address this is a way that won't shut down the discussion from the start. Maybe a pipe dream but I have to try.
Oh! Now I get your point. Thanks.
I do feel strongly about people who want to call abortion murder, let alone genocide. The extreme religious right is probably one of the most important factors in my refusal to call myself a conservative -- because they've hijacked the term. Every time I see something like this I lean more to the left.
On a related note, a hate group calling themselves Westboro Baptist Church is staging a protest at my daughter's school on Monday. Google them. Their website made me sick.
I guess I don't so much have a problem with him believing abortion is bad. I do want him to learn a healthy skepticism about chain emails preaching extreme positions. And if he's going to take a stand, I'd like to know he's considered the arguments on all sides. I have to ask him, "If it's bad and you're not advocating bombing clinics, what are you advocating?"
When he recently converted to Catholicism, our old banter became more difficult. He made a remark about Catholicism being the true Christianity and the Pope being infallible in matters of faith and when I tried to engage he basically decided I was blindly attacking anything connected to his beliefs. So I want to address this is a way that won't shut down the discussion from the start. Maybe a pipe dream but I have to try.
Oh, Westboro.
Youtube them as well. You can see what wacky hijinks the protest protestors have come up with. The best ones are the gay guys who go and hit on them just to **** them off.
Youtube them as well. You can see what wacky hijinks the protest protestors have come up with. The best ones are the gay guys who go and hit on them just to **** them off.
I think opposing a position on an issue by finding the most radical people who also hold that position and playing the "if you agree with them on this, then you agree with them on everything else!" game is a pretty weak way to argue. Sadly, it's also a very common method.
Let's not label every single person who holds a given position on abortion with the same broad brush, shall we?
I'd also suggest that it's a bit one sided to insist that the other side back up claims with statistics, while not doing any research of your own. The position of several of you seems predicated on the assumption that the pro-choice position is "right", so your obligation is simply to show the misguided pro-lifer the error of his ways. Um... Why not examine your own position using the same criteria?
A few seconds of googling, found me some basic information.
The worldwide number is 42 million. Short of 50, but that's still in the same ballpark, right?
Another relevant statistic is that 93% of abortions are performed for social/choice reasons. Which calls into question the "guilt" approach of using the small number of scenarios involving rape or incest to push a position which overwhelmingly isn't about that.
Isn't it possible that our current stance and laws regarding abortion amount to quite literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Let's not label every single person who holds a given position on abortion with the same broad brush, shall we?
I'd also suggest that it's a bit one sided to insist that the other side back up claims with statistics, while not doing any research of your own. The position of several of you seems predicated on the assumption that the pro-choice position is "right", so your obligation is simply to show the misguided pro-lifer the error of his ways. Um... Why not examine your own position using the same criteria?
A few seconds of googling, found me some basic information.
The worldwide number is 42 million. Short of 50, but that's still in the same ballpark, right?
Another relevant statistic is that 93% of abortions are performed for social/choice reasons. Which calls into question the "guilt" approach of using the small number of scenarios involving rape or incest to push a position which overwhelmingly isn't about that.
Isn't it possible that our current stance and laws regarding abortion amount to quite literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Another relevant statistic is that 93% of abortions are performed for social/choice reasons. Which calls into question the "guilt" approach of using the small number of scenarios involving rape or incest to push a position which overwhelmingly isn't about that.
Isn't it possible that our current stance and laws regarding abortion amount to quite literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Choice reasons are perfectly acceptable to me. Beyond that, do you even know what the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" means or did you just get excited to have a common analogy with the word "baby" in it?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
If your son sends you retarded emails, you get to call him out it.
It's like, the law or something.
It's like, the law or something.
Nexa wrote:
Choice reasons are perfectly acceptable to me.
And yet, most arguments for legalizing abortion do so by highlighting the tragic cases of women impregnated by rape or incest and those who are at medical risk.
Want to count how many times those have been used in this thread and compare to how many time someone argued that abortion is ok because it's about a womans right to choose?
Quote:
Beyond that, do you even know what the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" means or did you just get excited to have a common analogy with the word "baby" in it?
Nexa
Nexa
Yes. Of course I do. It means that in the process of getting rid of something you don't want/need, you end up getting rid of something you do want. More broadly, it applies to situations in which in the process of doing something necessary and useful (throwing out the bathwater), it costs you something else (the baby).
At the risk of explaining what I thought was an obvious analogy, the argument most commonly used to support legalized abortion is cases of rape/incest and medical harm to the pregnant woman. But in the process of allowing those cases, the actual result is overwhelmingly to allow abortion in situations many people would oppose.
There are many people who oppose "at choice" abortion, but will be swayed by arguments about rape/incest to allow abortion in those cases. But their acceptance of those cases is used to push for the very types of abortions they don't agree with (the "at choice") ones. While you may be fine with that, I imagine those people get a bit irked when time and time again they're demonized for opposing abortion in the case of rape/incest/harm-to-mother, when they really just don't want people walking into an abortion clinic with a perfectly healthy pregnancy and terminating it just because having the child would be inconvenient for them.
When you require that the issue be argued as an "all or nothing" deal (either allow abortions for choice or no abortions at all), you put those people into a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation. They have to either support not allowing abortions in the case of rape/incest *or* allow abortions for choice and choice alone. They're not allowed to separate the baby from the bathwater if you will...
Edited, Mar 25th 2009 7:40pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Choice reasons are perfectly acceptable to me.
And yet, most arguments for legalizing abortion do so by highlighting the tragic cases of women impregnated by rape or incest and those who are at medical risk.
Want to count how many times those have been used in this thread and compare to how many time someone argued that abortion is ok because it's about a womans right to choose?
It's possible that I'm less aware of it since the rape/incest clause is less important to me. Because I am 100 percent behind a woman's right to choose, I see the rape/incest clause as not only a distraction, but detrimental to the argument because it risks people saying, "OH! Well if that's what you're worried about, we'll make abortion illegal EXCEPT in those cases."
To me, the complications of making abortion illegal are more horrifying than just rape case abortions. Anyway, that's enough about that, we've all had this discussion before.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I don't have a ******, so it's not my call.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of explaining what I thought was an obvious analogy, the argument most commonly used to support legalized abortion is cases of rape/incest and medical harm to the pregnant woman. But in the process of allowing those cases, the actual result is overwhelmingly to allow abortion in situations many people would oppose.
There are many people who oppose "at choice" abortion, but will be swayed by arguments about rape/incest to allow abortion in those cases. But their acceptance of those cases is used to push for the very types of abortions they don't agree with (the "at choice") ones. While you may be fine with that, I imagine those people get a bit irked when time and time again they're demonized for opposing abortion in the case of rape/incest/harm-to-mother, when they really just don't want people walking into an abortion clinic with a perfectly healthy pregnancy and terminating it just because having the child would be inconvenient for them.
There are many people who oppose "at choice" abortion, but will be swayed by arguments about rape/incest to allow abortion in those cases. But their acceptance of those cases is used to push for the very types of abortions they don't agree with (the "at choice") ones. While you may be fine with that, I imagine those people get a bit irked when time and time again they're demonized for opposing abortion in the case of rape/incest/harm-to-mother, when they really just don't want people walking into an abortion clinic with a perfectly healthy pregnancy and terminating it just because having the child would be inconvenient for them.
Seems to me that would be more like bringing a baby in with the bathwater.
Nexa wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Choice reasons are perfectly acceptable to me.
And yet, most arguments for legalizing abortion do so by highlighting the tragic cases of women impregnated by rape or incest and those who are at medical risk.
Want to count how many times those have been used in this thread and compare to how many time someone argued that abortion is ok because it's about a womans right to choose?
It's possible that I'm less aware of it since the rape/incest clause is less important to me. Because I am 100 percent behind a woman's right to choose, I see the rape/incest clause as not only a distraction, but detrimental to the argument because it risks people saying, "OH! Well if that's what you're worried about, we'll make abortion illegal EXCEPT in those cases."
To me, the complications of making abortion illegal are more horrifying than just rape case abortions. Anyway, that's enough about that, we've all had this discussion before.
Nexa
I could see the number of rape claims going up if that were to happen as well.
I'm Pro-choice, mainly for the right to choose. There's too many people in this world already, and we don't need any extra unwanted babies. I think the laws are fine as they are now. I figure you should have been able to decide whether or not you want and/or can take care of a baby in that first 3 months.
Deadbeet wrote:
I could see the number of rape claims going up if that were to happen as well.
I'm Pro-choice, mainly for the right to choose. There's too many people in this world already, and we don't need any extra unwanted babies. I think the laws are fine as they are now. I figure you should have been able to decide whether or not you want and/or can take care of a baby in that first 3 months.
Those are fine, completely valid reasons. However, they are, to me, secondary to the requirement of pregnancy. If the issue is as simple as just not wanting to care for an infant after the fact, then adoption is viable. What anti-choice, "just give it up, hell I'll buy your baby off of you" activists can't seem to wrap their heads around is the requirement of pregnancy and labor in order to get the baby to the point of being adoptable. There is also the issue of the requirement of genetics, but again, I digress. We can always link an old thread if we want to get back into an abortion debate.
For the OP, remind your son that ************ leaves the death of millions of potential lives on his hands literally.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Belkira wrote:
Seems to me that would be more like bringing a baby in with the bathwater.
Forcing it through a spigot for the sake of doing so, and never mind the damage done in the process.
I've always thought that the abortion debate is a struggle for control at its heart. Control of womens' sexuality and behavior, specifically.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
But standing around guessing probably isn't helpful at all...
This is hilarious coming from you, a man who's made a posting career speculating and pulling shit out of his *** based utterly on assumptions.
Recent Visitors: 378
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (378)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Virtue Media anti-abortion spiel
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC