Tell Me There Are More Good People In This World

[Loomis]

Loomis,

Your rhetoric is tiring (as is all arguement that creates circularity when it doesn't have to be so).

In this case, my so-called 'rhetoric' was in response to your dismissal of three arguments (two of which were perfectly valid ones, if you have dismissed mine) in lieu of your pre-determined notion that your idea was the right one. You had already decided you weren't going to agree with the counter-argument, so dismissing the logic in them as 'nonsensical' was a very convenient way of actually avoiding any debate. It may be circular, but it was more semi-circular - trying to bring us back to the debate rather than decisive declarations.

Are you telling me you would encourage your wife (or should I say common law spouse?) to kill you child because it's convenient? I'll come back to that point in a minute...

Who is over simplyfying now? Nobody said abortion was "convenient", or an easy option. It is just not that simple either. Why can't you accept that having the option doesnt mean mass abortions as a Sunday afternoon activity? People don't think of it as such. Some might, but that is not the majority.

2099net brought in these othjer issues because he recognises that the issue is wrapped up in other "liberal" issues as well. I don't think you can be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. Both are about the taking of life as a means to alleviate some burden (following one line of thought). The Death Penalty is just as convenient a way to

How about this one: Do you eat meat? Can you be anti-abortion AND a meat-eater? Isn't that the killing of small, defenceless animals AND EATING THEM just a "convenient" way of filling our stomachs? After all, a responsible and thinking person would know there are other options. Or is that value call as well: a baby cow or lamb is worth less than an unborn child?

Now, I'm sure you are going to dismiss the above argument as well, but here's the point: the abortion debate doesn't exist in a bubble. You can't be anti it, without taking into account that there are other factors that make up society. By the same token, no two people have the same experience, and abortion is going to be an option for a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. Convenience is not necessarily one of them.

(Talk about low comprehension skills.)
[...]
Do you guys have the decency to let me finish my statement before I'm met with a barrage? I'm sure that's too much to ask for, but...I'll try.

Sure, if you have the decency to actually read people's arguments and respond without being insulting!

[GhostHost]

well, usually only bad deeds make the news. The problem is that people are so mean-spirited, if they could lighten up on that, the world would be much better. Shows such as American Idol and The Bachelor reinforce mean-spiritedness. I am far from poiltically correct, so do not get the wrong idea. I am not saying movies should be censored, but if all people want is violence, sex, and language(hence why almost every movie made is PG-13 or R) they need to look for something more. BTW I am no prude on violence, I quite enjoy the Saw movies, but if all a movie has is violence it is stupid.

[2099net]

Loomis,

Your rhetoric is tiring (as is all arguement that creates circularity when it doesn't have to be so).

In regards to 2099net's post, I don't understand what he's trying to say. The majority of it isn't even about abortion. Again, this is a hyper-example of trying to check everyone off of one of two agendas: liberal and conservative. Let's just say for a moment that there really is a loose thread (albeit that's a stretch) that joins all these "pro-life" social issues. Is he saying that someone can not be against abortion and for the death penalty at the same time?

....

For some reason or another, all three of you seem to have interpreted my post as a stance for making abortion illegal, which is strange because I never said that. (Talk about low comprehension skills.)

At least half of my post, if not more is about abortion. Did you read it all or skip it after the initial paragraphs?

Of course Abortion is connected to other pro-life issues. How can you be pro-life when it comes to unborn babies, but indifferent once life begins? Sure, a baby is innocent, but untold innocents die every day through deaths that can be avoided, but most people, even pro-life anti-abortionists prefer to ignore or find some way to justify their indifference.

I don't know how you feel about these (which I acknowleged in my post) but generally people who don't support abortion are conservative, and generally they support the issues I mentioned. And such people have zero credibility in my mind as they contradict themselves.

As for our low comprehension skills

You author a post filled with emotional words and phrases like "Holocaust" or "I almost literally vomitted my dinner", "tramps who knock themselves up and then murder their own children" (for a small sample) and we're supposed to read into that "I don't agree with abortion, but it should still be legal", just because you throw in a random "Yes, technically abortion is a form of civil rights, and I don't think impeding on civil rights is ever a good thing" which itself is immediately qualified with a "but" clause, implying the topic at hand is an exception (which uses language deliberately calculated to cause a strong emotional response).

Yes, technically abortion is a form of civil rights, and I don't think impeding on civil rights is ever a good thing, but the number of tramps who knock themselves up and then murder their own children is just sickening.

And then you critisise our comprehension skills. How about critisising your own hype?

[Lazario]

I knew it! I got three replies that make almost next to no sense and which strayed from the topic at hand. With so many differing but "equal" opinions, no wonder today's youth are growing up confused and without sound morals and a clear direction in life. I guess Ann Coulter is also right that liberalism in itself is not a bad idea, but that there's a growing decline of cognitive thought in liberal thinking. I guess she's the victor here.

Eric, right now you are so off, that your confusion is now straying into either selective-hearing or antisocialism. I don't know what's really going on here - either the length of these posts is a problem for you or you can't deal with logic. But don't say that just because it doesn't fit in with what you think, that it's not cognitivie thought.

[Prince Eric]

Another annoying liberal tactic: say that your opponent hasn't read or comprehended you arguement, even after he/she has clearly deconstructed the loopholes. If this discussion is going to continue, after this post, I'm only going to address the topic of abortion, like I have been. I'm not from the school of thought that says arguement is the art of mind dumping everything in my head NOT related to the subject. That's so...undergraduate?

I like the way several people have claimed that they refuse to do research, but insist that their opinion is definately the more logical. Obviously you two guys (Loomis and 2099net) aren't very informed about the sex culture in the United States. I've done research. The overwhelming majority of abortions are simply "birth control." I'm talking about only one in ten (and that's a HUGE benefit of the doubt) have legit reasons for abortion, and almost ALL of abortions could have been preventitive.

One of the arguements brought up here is that I'm not a woman or have never had to make a decision on the matter myself. And that is a valid arguement how? Research and education and knowledge are not particular to one sex. I can certainly have an opinion on the matter. Otherwise, men couldn't write about women, women about men, blacks about whites, blacks about gays, or any other combination.

Abortion is not a women's cause. It's a liberal one. It's not a concern to feminists, but it is to femal bourgeousie. Smart women know the responsibilities and consequences of loose conduct, and are less likely to engage in that type of behavior. That's just a hard anthropological fact.

Lazario, I stand by my arguements about some type of women, and you have no right to tell me what to do. You are a nihilist who has probably lightly read the works of Freud, Nietzche, and Focoult (sp?) and think that you somehow have the world figured out. Read this: there's other people who've read the same things and some of them think life is beautiful. Some even choose to fight for innocent life.

"I have chosen to stay and fight." - Margaret Cho

[Loomis]

Another annoying liberal tactic: say that your opponent hasn't read or comprehended you arguement, even after he/she has clearly deconstructed the loopholes.

Isn't that what you did when you dismissed everyone's arguments immediately saying they "make almost next to no sense and which strayed from the topic at hand"? .

My opponent hasn't deconstructed any of the loopholes - just avoided them. That must be a conservative tactic.

I like the way several people have claimed that they refuse to do research, but insist that their opinion is definately the more logical. Obviously you two guys (Loomis and 2099net) aren't very informed about the sex culture in the United States. I've done research.
[...]
Smart women know the responsibilities and consequences of loose conduct, and are less likely to engage in that type of behavior. That's just a hard anthropological fact.

By the same token you have claimed to do research and talk about "hard facts" and "being the victor". Yet, we are still to see any evidence of this.

As has already been pointed out, you also talk about your argument being based on evidence and research, then use terms like "loose conduct". It comes across as uneducated, as it has boiled your 'hard anthropological facts' down to a whimsy some undesirable women engage in, then presumably have an abortion before going back to work on Monday morning. I see arrogant posturing, not hard facts and any evidence of research.

As for the topic straying from abortion, this thread wasn't originally about abortion. It asked the question 'Are there any good people left in the world?' and the abortion debate somehow got dragged into that. The abortion debate is off topic, and people trying to incorporate other arguments is not 'undergraduate dumping', but rather trying to contextualise the debate within the wider scope of this thread.

[Lazario]

Abortion is not a women's cause. It's a liberal one. It's not a concern to feminists, but it is to femal bourgeousie. Smart women know the responsibilities and consequences of loose conduct, and are less likely to engage in that type of behavior.

Abortion will always be a women's cause, because it has always had to do with the control over a woman's body. Woman's body = woman's cause. I'm starting to think you don't know what the word abortion means. Your claims that it's liberal, are completely off-base. And ignorant, as a matter of fact. You can't write it off, because when the control over a woman's body is taken out of her hands by ANYONE for ANY REASON - it's wrong! Especially for reason's dictated by someone else's morals. Because morals shift and change. So stop masquerading this as anything political, because we already know who ACTUALLY cares about women here. You don't. You cry afoul for the baby's rights. A baby in a stage of development in which it can't actually count as 100% human. Forget what it "will" be, that's a TECHNICALITY - something invented or applied to help someone come up with an excuse to label it wrong when in reality, it's this brand of thinking versus something that is wrong at EVERY stage - taking a fundamental right away from women. Smart or stupid has nothing to do with the woman BECOMING pregnant, in the end, it's her body that goes through changes. IT BEGINS AND ENDS WITH HER! It's not about God, or you, or the moral majority, or anyone else - it's ABOUT HER and it's her decision.

[I am the Doctor]

In regards to abortion and pro-life issues in general, I have always preferred to deal with the practicalities (particularly financial) rather than being stirred by simple emotion. Most of the abortion argument deals with the child while in the mother's womb, there is much less focus on what happens to the child after birth.

It is very likely that if abortion is made illegal that there will no doubt be many more unwanted children born. Sure, you can force a woman to carry a child to birth, but it doesn't mean you're going to be able to force said woman to care for that child after birth. Yes, one could punish the birth parents (the father as well as the mother, if the father is known) for not caring for their child, but parents who are jail or can't be found or are out of work, are not caring for the child anyway.

So what happens to these unwanted or neglected children? Some lucky few will be adopted by loving parents but unfortunately many others will end up in state custody and be raised in orphanages and/or with foster parents. The states currently have trouble maintaining the current social service systems now, mostly due to lack of funds. Add even more children to the social service systems and you may end up overwhelming them.

State social services will need to be beefed up to care for the extra children, and that will require extra money. And that money will have to come either by cutting other government programs or by raising taxes.

Take the unpleasant business of the Terry Schaivo case last year, the parents wanted to keep their daugther on the feeding tube while the husband wanted to take the feeding tube out. Somewhere lost in all this business was the costs involved with Terry's care. And from what I've heard, the money that was set aside for Terry was running out. I had (and still have) absolutely no problem if Terry's husband had told the parents (and indeed, everyone who supported them): If you want to keep Terry alive, then you can pay for Terry's care. I think if that option had been offered to Terry's parents, then the whole situation would have never gotten as overblown as it did.

Some might say that I'm being a bit unfeeling to be talking about the monetary consequences of banning abortion, but I call it just looking at the whole abortion argument realistically. There are many out there who will not feel that they have a financial obligation to care for unwanted children. If that is the case, then I don't feel that one can fully support a pro-life position. I feel that if one does support pro-life, that one also takes on the obligation and responsibilites of making sure that those unwanted children are cared for.

Indeed, that is why I have never taken a position on the whole abortion debate, either pro-choice or pro-life. I support the idea behind pro-life, I don't like the idea of abortion. But I also don't want to feel obligated to pay for the care of so many more unwanted children, and if I support pro-life, I feel that I am obligated to be financially responsible for the care of said children.

[creid]

Wow!!! Somebody laments about a trajedy and the thread ends up being a big conservative/liberal debate about abortion.

1) It is very sad when such things happen and society do it's best to limit such occurrances. And moving to suburbans does not solve things.

2) Unfortunately, the media has gotten too sensational in its reporting and latches on the wrong stories. There is a lot of good in the world but it does not seem to make headlines. It is not reported but the United States crime rate has been declining for the past 15 years.

3) Blaming media, movies and videogames for these problems reminds of one of favorite Simpsons episodes about censorship, Itchy & Scratchy. Dr Monroe says "Did you know there was violence before cartoon?"

4) I would say abortion is probably not a good topic for such a forum as this. The issue has no middle ground so it will continue to divide the people. Let us stick to slipcovers and whining that Chicken Little is only on one disc.

[princesssnowbunny]

There are more good people in this world.

-Aaron

Thanks Aaron, for what you said, and for getting back on topic

[princesssnowbunny]

Abortion is not a woman's issue just because it's her body. When another one's life is getting put into the mix, it becomes something totally different. A child shouldn't have to die just because of one woman's stupid mistakes.

[Zoltack]

What if it wasn't her fault though because she got raped? Think about it, you didn't want it to happen but you were forced. I would think that's a totally lagitiment reason to have an abortion. If you do go through the pregancy what are you going to tell the child? "Your father was a rapist and you're a mistake." Could you handle telling a child that? I think in that case it's totally legit to have an abortion.
Now if she was drinking and not being responsible, then I can see the other side of the argument. You have to take responsibility for what you done. Or if it was a stupid mistake like forgetting to take a birth control pill or not using protection. Then yes you should go through the pregnacy and be responsible for your actions.

[princesssnowbunny]

rape, of course, is a different story. that's where i think it's hard to draw the line. but if the woman is just not wanting a child, it's not fair for that child to not even have a fighting chance just because of her bad choice

[Escapay]

it's not fair

Life isn't fair. If it were, then people would only get pregnant when they want to, everyone would make $100,000 a year, the world would be at complete peace, and maybe, just maybe, men would be able to understand women.

Escapay

[castleinthesky]

men would be able to understand women.

Escapay

and also the other way around.

[Escapay]

men would be able to understand women.

Escapay

and also the other way around.

Yeah, I forgot about that. But it's pretty easy to understand us. According to Steve Taylor (of Coupling), the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche is:

1. Naked Bottoms
2. Lesbians
3. Stockings
4. Sean Connery best as James Bond

Then again, that's from a guy who the entire time was defending a film called Lesbian Spank Inferno, so I'd take that with a grain of salt!

Escapay

[princesssnowbunny]

it's not fair

Life isn't fair.
Escapay

Well for the child that's being killed it wouldn't even be able to experience that because the girl who got pregnant was too stupid. Sorry, but it's really NOT THAT HARD to not get pregnant if you can't afford to have a child, or don't want one.

[Lazario]

Well for the child that's being killed it wouldn't even be able to experience that because the girl who got pregnant was too stupid. Sorry, but it's really NOT THAT HARD to not get pregnant if you can't afford to have a child, or don't want one.

Think about what you're saying for 1 second, and you'll see that calling these women who get pregnant for whatever reason unplanned, stupid, is completely beside the point, and doesn't help you or anyone else in understanding why we have abortion and why it's so important to protect.

And it's very ignorant to continue to push this issue just because it happens to be "killing a child." There are a lot of hard facts in life, you're moralizing an issue, like many do, when you just can't do that. When does this moralizing actually assist these women in taking care of their babies? Someone really should be held accountable for what women do and do not know about pregnancy - because basically it's for 2 reasons - a lack of sexual education in their years growing up and really, men being so sexually advancing (I call it the "male heat" syndrome) that women feel like it's their job to 'put out' due to low self-esteem. This surely doesn't effect all women, which is why FEMINISM is even more important - listen to what these people are really saying and you'll understand a little bit more - but it effects enough women to drive that final wedge in showing us that it really are the poor and ignorant who aren't as able to control these factors as we are.

And remember, I said my mother had an abortion. She was 40 or older at the time, a working mother of 2 - are you going to tell my mother that she was stupid? She's perfectly fine today, of all the things that have affected her life, her abortion never once hurt our family or kept her awake at night. Know you might respond to that thinking, she was an evil woman or a stupid woman or any number of things. But I knew her, you didn't. Saying this whole thing is about stupidity... is the real stupid thing. And that makes who stupid, honestly?

Again, look what we have here - we have compassionate people who disagree with abortion for themselves but care enough about others to say it might be necessary for other people, and we have other people who say it's killing and evil and whatever they want. You all may think your morals make you superior, I'm not saying you're trying to use that against others. But it happens to be something that requires no thinking power, and you'll try to use rationalizing because of these unintelligent feelings, to say you know the right course of action in someone else's life. In short, you don't know these people who are having abortions. You and people like...we know who here is like that, keep calling them stupid or irresponsible. And none of that matters at all. None of it. Because in the end, who has to deal with this pregnancy, the decisions, the consequences? Not the people who are opposed to abortion. It's as simple as that. Saying it's wrong just because it's killing this unborn child, is not correct.

And while it's also unfair, the fact is - the child inside her is only conceived through her parts. That puts an end to the discussion right there. Because the second anyone is allowed to make this decision for someone else, for whatever reason, we also admit that we just gave any and all rights to our bodies away to whatever moral conclusion a certain population of whatever country reaches. That's as wrong and evil a thing as abortion could ever be.