Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder.

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Left Of Genghis Khan, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That doesn't make any difference .. no person should be able to tell a woman that they can or cannot remain pregnant, what happens after birth is a different issue.
     
  2. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We just finished a year and a half of people demonizing various candidates, sometimes accusing individuals of being the equivalent of "the most diabolical, tortuous, evil form of murderer of innocents that has ever been conceived in the dark hearts of man." Many of the characterizations have become even more stark and vitriolic since the election.

    Even so, I never once heard anyone say that the right to vote should be rescinded.

    I reiterate, thinking something is horrible does not necessarily imply the desire to illegalize it.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you contend that the OP wants to keep legal something he finds ""the most diabolical, tortuous, evil form of murderer of innocents that has ever been conceived in the dark hearts of man."

    That's an odd, illogical thought.


    BTW, There was a thread on why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
     
  4. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did not contend a desire to keep it legal, only that the statement does not automatically necessitate a desire to make it illegal.

    The statement in Left of Gengis' post does not tell us either way whether there is a desire to remove legal choice, or a willingness to accept people's choices, but still use inflammatory language to influence people to choose against having abortions.

    Regarding the thread on why women shouldn't be allowed to vote: Please tell me it was either satirical or troll-bait.
     
  5. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it is possible
    What I think is impossible is to be ignorant of the many reasons that others have different opinions
    And THAT imo was the implication of the original post.


    The original poster was asking a question similar to asking why People think it is ok to continue beating their wife. Answering the question implies that you ARE beating your wife.

    Likewise the original post asks why people feel it is ok to murder an innocent when we all know that many of us feel there is no innocent to be murdered... and presumably you and the original poster are not ignorant of this... therefore the motive of original question must reflect insincere gamesmanship rather than the feigned sincere request for information

    But what is the motive of this gamesmanship if it is not to gain information as proposed?
    Well it seems indisputable that the original poster thinks that abortion is vile murder of innocents
    And certainly he would like to inhibit that reality
    And certainly he is aware that he is not the first to conclude that abortion is vile murder
    Nor is he deluded to think that others have been unaware of this assertion
    And he will be aware that merely asserting this opinion has been inadequate to eliminate abortions
    So long as abortion is legal
    So, if you feel that abortion is vile most murder, and this murder is ongoing and legal
    Then the only option is to change the law to conform to the reality that abortion is vile murder

    So on the above basis I conclude that the original poster had no interest in sincerely soliciting opinions, or in expressing his own opinion without foisting it upon others. His interest was to force people to accept his view that abortion is vile murder and should therefore. Be treated as what it is.
     
  6. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair comment, and I couldn't agree more - in fact I said as much in an earlier post. I obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick. [​IMG]
     
  7. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No probs :)
     
  8. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That 'there-there' smiley should've been an 'embarrassed' smiley. :roll: [​IMG] ( [​IMG] )
     
  9. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no idea how one would foist an opinion on others. Hypnosis maybe?

    How could one possibly force another to accept his view? Waterboarding?

    The beauty of independent thought is that we control our own. We have experiences, including secondhand exposure to the ideas of others. We then process those experiences according to our other experiences, our values, and logic. True, sometimes our experiences are rare or misleading, sometimes our values are subject to self-interest, and sometimes our logic is flawed or subject to bias.

    Even so, each individual controls his or her thought process. While others may attempt to influence it by suggesting other viewpoints, or recounting information, or employing rhetorical devices to elicit emotional responses, there is no duress in conversation that can take away the freedom of independent thought.

    For example, you and I are expressing disagreement, but neither of us is foisting off on the other an interpretation of Left of Genghis' post that the other does not freely and willingly accept. Neither can force the other to accept our own view.

    What happens in these forums is nothing more than conversation. However firmly grounded in preconceived notions, preferences, biases, and values the original post may have been, both the expressed intent and the effect were to start a conversation among people who disagree. That means we are all exposed to ideas we disagree with, and we are all given the opportunity to critique each others' ideas and defend and explain our own.

    There is no hypnosis here, nor is there waterboarding, so I am confident that we are all safe from being forced to accept each others' views.
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gee all that was self evident , (and could be expressed in much fewer words)......did you have anything to say on the topic?
     
  11. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113


    My friend
    Corporations spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising which they presumably feel influences opinion

    Political campaigns are nothing other than trying to influence public opinion.... bush is weak, lying Ted, corrupt Hillary

    Communists and fascists had enormous and sophisticated propaganda machines

    Religious evangelists try to recruit followers on the street, and shape them from the pulpit and via televangelists

    We were essentially stampeded into wars with Iraq and Vietnam nam.... wars that no one started out wanting


    And you say it is impossible to influence opinions???

    Leaving aside the fact that you are wrong in the general case
    We all know that animals try to trick other animals
    They hide, and lie, and pretend, and misrepresent all of the time
    They do this in the attempt to gain an advantage, or even for sheer pleasure


    Do I think that the original poster had a strategy that would sucessfully change opinions... no
    Do I think he was making a sincere request for information.... nope

    But NEW MOON , here is a question for you... a sincere question
    DO YOU think the the original posting was made with no devious hidden agenda?
    Do you think it was the ".sincere " request for feedback that it was framed as being?
     
  12. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I did not say it is impossible to influence opinions. I wrote, "While others may attempt to influence it by suggesting other viewpoints, or recounting information, or employing rhetorical devices to elicit emotional responses, there is no duress in conversation that can take away the freedom of independent thought."

    Normally, unless I identify satire or sarcasm, I take people at their word, here. For example, when you address me as "my friend", I take it literally that we are friends of a sort, or at the least having a friendly conversation.

    People often start conversations with questions. Asking for someone else's opinion and reasoning is an effective way to start a discussion. That is hardly devious.

    I do not pretend to know whether there was a "hidden agenda", nor do I care. I am on this site so I can interact with people I disagree with, test their ideas, and have them test mine. When someone disagrees intelligently with me, I am appreciative. I assume engagement with ideological opponents is a common motivation for participation on the site. It is perfectly kosher for the person who asked the original question to respond in turn to people's opinions with a contrary one.

    The potential to influence people we disagree with is some of the fun of it.
     
  13. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I already answered the thread's initial question. (post #193 on page 20.)

    What you are responding to is a related discussion (with ARDY) about whether it is possible to be against abortion, without wanting to remove legal access to abortion, and without wanting to remove other people's freedom to choose. There was also a digression about whether Left of Genghis Khan was being disingenuous in asking for reasoning that justifies abortion.

    I thought it was all self-evident, too, but ARDY disagreed.
     
  14. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry that you thought my use of the word foist implied taking away choice


    Very few people will consider this approach as an effective conversation starter
    " but my question is, to only those who have seen and read the exact details of the abortion procedure, how can you not consider abortion as the most diabolical, tortuous, evil form of murder of innocents that has ever been conceived in the dark hearts of man?"

    The question presumes that those who support abortion rights are in favor of murder of innocents

    It is as innocent a conversation starter as asking why people voted for trump when they know that he is a stupid, corrupt and vile racist
     
  15. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread would seem to be evidence that it was, in fact, an effective conversation starter.

    That is a GREAT conversation starter!

    Wrong thread, of course, but there is no end to the number of people who would love to respond to that.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And with your reasoning if someone refers to Trump as a stupid, corrupt and vile racists it doesn't mean they didn't vote for him....:roll:
     
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some knowledge of biology and neuroscience may help. Certainly, a body member (arm, leg) designed to flex will do so when stimulated sufficiently to cause flexing. So "clawing at life" etc, is mere emotional bias. What is the truth in the facts?

    The truth is that a fetus is not aware (does not "feel") pain until the spine is beginning its development around the 20th week. An abortion in the 15th week, for example, would be expected to produce a response from muscles, but those responses are just nerves firing and going only to muscles and producing a spontaneous flex.

    Have you never done experiments in biology lab in high school that show muscles of the sample flexing in response to probing of tissues? The sample was dead and felt nothing. I used to hunt and I've shot, gutted, and field-dressed game and found that I could stimulate a leg to flex even though the leg was already separated from the body.

    The 15-week-old fetus is incapable of feeling, yet such muscle responses can be observed.

    Oh, and BTW, a fetus is not a person and a fetus is not butchered. That is reserved for two purposes: one is to prepare food animals for use, and the other is to inflame and judge so as to generate a fight.
     
  18. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Valid points (in my opinion). I would suggest that the developmental progress of the spinal column may allow signals to reach the primitive brain stem (allowing reflex responses) but we know from other research that the cerebrum still has a lot of developmental stages to complete before it can comprehend pain. Furthermore, the fetus gets a constant supply of sedatives in the blood supply and a reduced oxygen level which keep it from "waking up" inside the womb. Even in the last few weeks when the developmental changes in the cerebrum might enable the brain to experience pain, it would be false to say a surgical patient experiences pain while on the operating table and it would be false to say the fetus experiences pain while inside the womb.
     
  19. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is all about alternatives.

    To continue with your example, this site is full of people who have expressed loathing of Trump, but say they did (or planned to) vote for Trump simply because they concluded with ample reason that Hillary was even worse. (I think this was the view of the majority of people who voted for Trump.)

    Thus, our little digression leads back to the original post on this thread.


    It is possible to think that abortion is corrupt, vile, etc., yet still think a law which strips a woman of ownership of any part of her body is even worse.

    Likewise, I am sure there are those who think stripping women of legal control of their bodies is horrible, but think that abortion is worse, so they want abortion to become illegal.

    Very few important choices are between a thing we like and a thing we dislike. Often we must evaluate and balance things that are similar in their awfulness, and select one. This awful similarity is part of how these issues become so hotly contested.

    This is also why people who disagree on these issues should actually listen to each other, and refrain from treating each other like enemies.
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who are against American citizens having equal rights ARE the enemy. If they're friends of yours well good for you.....I don't have "friends" like that.

    Now go ahead and nit pick about what the OP, who has left the building, did or didn't want...it's been a silly, boring conversation...
     
  21. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which "people who are against American citizens having equal rights" are you talking about?

    I made no statements about what the OP did or did not want. I only made statements about what the OP did or did not actually say, and about whether particular conclusions are necessarily implied in the OP's actual statements.

    Whether you find it entertaining or not, nit picking is essential to sound thinking.

    Many people who did not nit pick prior to signing a contract can vouch for how expensive it can be to assume the text means something not explicitly stated.

    Besides, it makes no sense to have a conversations with people, if you are going to put words in their mouths.
     
  22. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    """ Which "people who are against American citizens having equal rights"? ""

    Those who want to make abortion illegal (which you knew).

    You are nit picking a silly point which has nothing to do with abortion rights or the OP....nit picking is fine if it has some meaning...your nit doesn't.
     
  23. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually I didn't know.

    I expected it to be a reference to the Trump conversation starter example, and be in regard to Trump supporter views on immigrants, etc..

    The problem is that some in this particular debate would say the citizens in question are the unborn babies, & some would say the mothers who want abortions. This illustrates another problem with people on each side demonizing the other.

    You all become indistinguishable from each other because the attitudes are all the same. Even the particular issues become indistinguishable behind the rancor and divisiveness.
     
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not surprising, you don't seem to know you're in the abortion forum.

    Those would be the ones in the wrong since you have to be born to be a citizen and have rights.
    .

    The people who are correct.


    Yes, if you ignore the statements of each party you can't see the difference. Attitude is not facts or science or law....all of which the Pro-Choicers have on their side.


    .

    Yes, if you ignore the facts and concentrate on people speaking gently ...

    Now, again, do you have something to say about the topic or just want to whine about what big meanies people are??
     
  25. Marcus Moon

    Marcus Moon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would have seen I actually have been writing about the abortion debate. Recently I have addressed how some on both sides weaken their own arguments by retreating from actual interaction with each others' actual statements in favor of creating false dichotomies like Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, where Pro-Life is assumed to mean anti-choice, and Pro-Choice is assumed to mean anti-life.

    You ignore the obvious reality that "attitude" is what blinds you and some others to the fact both sides in the debate draw from the concept of Natural Law, the one side in favor of the right to freedom of the mother, and the other in favor of the right to life (and subsequent freedom) of the unborn.

    Are you honestly unable to see that most of you agree on basic ethical principles, and only differ in how to prioritize the application of the principles?

    The inability to see that would also go a long way to illustrate my point.

    It is fine if you enter a discussion not caring about feelings. If you don't care about being one of the "big meanies", I don't mind.

    My point was not about people speaking gently, but rather people ignoring the facts of what each other actually do and do not say, and as a result making unfounded assumptions that lead to embarrassingly inept thinking.

    I just figured, big meanie or not, most people would rather have sound (and sometimes even nuanced) responses to ideas.

    Moreover, I figured that some people engage in these discussions as more than a mere contest of opinions. Some would like for these and similar discussions to have more of an impact in the world than increasing the distribution of vitriol and self-righteousness.

    Consider that a large number of the people who find abortion horrible do not explicitly advocate for making it illegal. By the same token, a large number of the people who advocate for abortion remaining legal do not explicitly advocate for women having abortions. Based on common use of basic tenets of Natural Law, there is a wide intellectual and practical space for solutions in accordance with these common values--birth control and other proactive family planning strategies, encouragement of adoption, etc..

    When people metaphorically cover their ears and scream at each other, they merely move further away from finding ways to solve real problems, and achieve as many of their own various preferred ends as possible.
     

Share This Page