Quote
August West

Quote

And I'm not even sure I did that. kj.

Isn't that a convenient way to justify your dishonesty. You lied about me, but you won't admit it. Moron.

August, I want so badly to drop down to your level of discourse, but I'm not going to because it's pretty obvious to me it's your goal. So have a good one. kj.

The important elephant in the room here is that these conservative right wing fanatic (sorry, I didn't mean to insult the true conservatives) legislators don't give a damn whether the child is a gift or not. They just want to force their religious beliefs on others and punish raped women who get pregnant by forcing them to bear the children of rapists. This "gift" BS is nothing but an excuse for doing this.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 07:51PM by davester.

Quote
Ted King
kj, are you saying that a pregnancy that results from a rape can be considered a gift by the woman who was raped? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter whether the woman considers it a gift or not - that's not relavent to what it is that makes it a gift; that is, it is a gift no matter how the woman feels about it?

I can agree with you if you mean the former, but I would reject the latter.

I think the language is really important, because it's a complex, horrible situation that comes about when a man does something like that to a woman. There is absolutely nothing good about rape. I don't know about the pregnancy being a gift, per se. But I do feel strongly that the child is a gift. I'm not saying it doesn't matter whether the mother considers the child a gift or not, but I think it is a gift (it has great potential) whether she does or not. Stating it in terms of the pregnancy focuses on the wrongful act of the rapist because it's part of what he did. The child is not the pregnancy in those terms. The child is completely separate from the rapist, in my view. If you look at it pragmatically, killing the child might punish the rapist, if he cares. But what if he doesn't care either way? Also, Is there a chance it might "incentivise" rape (allowing the pregnancy to come to term). I can't imagine so since violence seems to be the motive for rape, not the pregnancy. At any rate, I am not defending Huckabee so much as defending a belief. He may or may not be sincere in his stated belief. But I am, so I feel I should defend it, even if it comes out of the mouth of someone I don't particularly agree with. kj.

Quote
kj
If you look at it pragmatically, killing the child might punish the rapist, if he cares.

Now you've gone completely off the tracks. Nobody is talking about killing children except you. We're not even talking about late term abortions. If you're implying that an early term abortion or morning after pill is killing children then you're wholly spouting religious dogma and there's no point in further discussion.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
kj
The child is completely separate from the rapist, in my view. If you look at it pragmatically, killing the child might punish the rapist, if he cares. But what if he doesn't care either way?

Abortion is not the murder of a child.

Abortion is not designed to punish rapists.

And this debate isn't about abortion.

Quote

I want so badly to drop down to your level of discourse...

You are not capable of discourse. Discourse involves thought and understanding. You make up the things you want to hear, failing to grasp the most basic statements presented by others. You prove annoyingly unperceptive in your attempts at discourse, clumsily stumbling through basic conversation with an inability to comprehend concepts more complex than drawing breath. Rarely, if ever, have you shown otherwise on this forum.

Quote
Chakravartin

Quote
kj
The child is completely separate from the rapist, in my view. If you look at it pragmatically, killing the child might punish the rapist, if he cares. But what if he doesn't care either way?

Abortion is not the murder of a child.

Abortion is not designed to punish rapists.

And this debate isn't about abortion.

I'm sure you know there are people who think that abortion is killing a child. Just so there's no confusion, I am one.

I never said or implied abortion was designed to punish rapists.

I think what others have been saying here is that the whole argument distills down to pro/anti abortion rights. I think they may be right. At any rate, I agree with Davester that the politicians use these issues for their own selfish interests, and I share his disdain for it. I don't think that means the issues are bogus though. kj.

Quote
August West

Quote

I want so badly to drop down to your level of discourse...

You are not capable of discourse. Discourse involves thought and understanding. You make up the things you want to hear, failing to grasp the most basic statements presented by others. You prove annoyingly unperceptive in your attempts at discourse, clumsily stumbling through basic conversation with an inability to comprehend concepts more complex than drawing breath. Rarely, if ever, have you shown otherwise on this forum.

August, I'm not real impressed with you either. The difference is that I know no one cares what I think about you. kj.

Quote
davester

Quote
kj
If you look at it pragmatically, killing the child might punish the rapist, if he cares.

Now you've gone completely off the tracks. Nobody is talking about killing children except you. We're not even talking about late term abortions. If you're implying that an early term abortion or morning after pill is killing children then you're wholly spouting religious dogma and there's no point in further discussion.

Ok, you can replace my belief that it is killing a child with your belief that it is terminating a pregnancy, or whatever. But I still wonder why the child can not be allowed to develop? For me, it's a basal instinct; that you can't allow the rapist to do that, or that you have to make sure he doesn't get what he wants, or benefit from his heinous act, etc. In a way, I'm all for it if it would hurt him. In another way, it doesn't seem quite right, and part of that is recognizing that the pregnancy will produce a person who doesn't deserve to be judged based on what he did. I'm not surprised a lot of people disagree, but it does surprise me people don't seem to be able to relate at all. kj.

Quote
kj
I think what others have been saying here is that the whole argument distills down to pro/anti abortion rights.

Nope. And it's not really an argument. It's an illustration.

There's a proud culture of ignorance, arrogance, misogyny and deceit infiltrating and subverting the Republican party and Akin has brought the whole ugly thing into the light for awhile. That's what this thread is about.

I'm sorry if my quote and black humor failed to illustrate that sufficiently for you in the OP.

Huckabee tried to bring the discussion around to a more familiar line of straw man arguments that faux conservatives believe that they can exploit to control the public debate. Overall they seem to be right. You've certainly bitten his hook and you've taken this thread far afield.

It's not about abortion. Its about human dignity and self-determination and it's a rare shining example of an ongoing campaign to end civil liberties with a fake patina of religious doctrine to lend an air of credibility to an otherwise unconscionable agenda.

We have way too many cretins and narcissists in Congress. The weight upon our fragile democracy is becoming unbearable.

Quote
kj
But I still wonder why the child can not be allowed to develop? For me, it's a basal instinct; that you can't allow the rapist to do that, or that you have to make sure he doesn't get what he wants, or benefit from his heinous act, etc.

Weird-- when this discussion started I was sure the rape and pregnancy in question were taking place inside a woman's body, but at this point it's like the woman never existed and all this is taking place in a synthetic womb in some futuristic lab. That's quite a trick.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 11:51PM by SDGuy.

Quote
kj

Quote
Ted King
kj, are you saying that a pregnancy that results from a rape can be considered a gift by the woman who was raped? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter whether the woman considers it a gift or not - that's not relavent to what it is that makes it a gift; that is, it is a gift no matter how the woman feels about it?

I can agree with you if you mean the former, but I would reject the latter.

I think the language is really important, because it's a complex, horrible situation that comes about when a man does something like that to a woman. There is absolutely nothing good about rape. I don't know about the pregnancy being a gift, per se. But I do feel strongly that the child is a gift. I'm not saying it doesn't matter whether the mother considers the child a gift or not, but I think it is a gift (it has great potential) whether she does or not. Stating it in terms of the pregnancy focuses on the wrongful act of the rapist because it's part of what he did. The child is not the pregnancy in those terms. The child is completely separate from the rapist, in my view.

There's more than one thing that I take issue with in what you said, but I'll stay focused on the term "gift" and what it means in this context. As you say, language is very important and that word is at the center of this use of language to express ideas, so the word "gift" is expressing a very important idea for you. Trying to understand why you chose to use that word is why I asked my questions. Thank you for your considerate answer.

The word "gift", by every denotation and connotation that I am familiar with, implies that there is a giver and a receiver. A zygote can develop into a mature enough Homo sapiens individual (or multiple individuals in the case of identical twins+) to survive outside the womb. Evidently the zygote is the receiver of those things. But that doesn't make sense unless there was a giver. Did someone give those things to the zygote? Who? God?

I suspect you would answer that the zygote is given the gift of those things from God. If so, then basically davester is right in at least one respect - your judgment that the zygote is a gift is based on religion. I think that is worth saying explicitly (maybe you already did and I missed it). If you do not think that a zygote is a gift from God, then the rest of this post is moot, but that would raise other questions.

It is that the choice to use the word "gift" in this context relies on the judgment that the zygote, if given by God, that forms the basis of one of the reasons why I reject its use in this context. I do not believe there is any God to give anything to anyone.

I have another reason for rejecting the use of the term "gift" in this context. You have gone to great lengths to separate the zygote from the woman who may very well be implanted with the embryo that develops from the zygote. She becomes irrelevant to the giftedness thing. But does the train of thought typically end there? I don't think so. If the zygote is a gift of God, then if a woman chooses to have an abortion, what that necessarily implies is that she is rejecting a gift from God. And that sentiment is not staying within the cranial cavities of a whole lot of anti-abortionists, it's coming out as a moral condemnation of the women who choose abortions. That moral condemnation attaches to women choosing an abortion who only have a zygote "gift from God" because a guy put semen in her body against her will. Some anti-abortionists will go so far as to morally condemn a woman whose health is significantly jeopardized by a pregnancy - even a woman whose health is put as great risk as a result of becoming pregnant from a rape. But for the sake of consistency, how could someone opposed to abortion because the zygote is gift from God say otherwise? If a zygote is a gift from God and the woman doesn't matter in the gift-naturedness, then any abortion of an implanted embryo that develops from that zygote is a rejection of a gift from God. How can you be morally justified in rejecting a gift from God? If you can be morally justified in doing so, what are the criteria for determining what kinds of things morally justify rejecting a gift from God and what things don't. Or would you say that it is not morally wrong to reject the gift of the zygote from God?

I just realized that these two expressions (I inadvertently used both above) mean something quite different and the difference makes quite a difference:


a) the zygote is the gift
b) the zygote is given a gift

If a zygote is the gift, then who is the gift being given too? The woman?

If the zygote is given a gift, what is this gift? Life? A soul?


If the zygote is given a gift, then shouldn't you be expressing your idea more clearly by saying "the zygote is given a gift of ______", rather than saying "the zygote is the gift"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2012 01:08AM by Ted King.

I suppose what I really mean by "gift" is that the child has potential to do all kinds of wonderful things. The child has value. It's part of my faith, but I don't think it has to be cast off as religious dogma. I've known countless women who have chosen to have unplanned children even when the medical issues were complicated. Many are atheists, and for whatever reason, their conscience objected to abortion. One considered it "barbarous". There are a significant number of atheists who are anti-abortion. An anti-abortion stance does not have to be religious in nature. Btw, I think being "thankful" is another word that has little meaning without a god, but at the same time, it's not hard to come up with a secular analogue for it.

As far as condemnation, I don't believe it's Biblical. We're all sinners, and only saved by the grace of god. Of course, people being people, the sin of others tends to be more serious than our own. But that's not how it is supposed to be ("And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?). Of course, pointing out what's good and what's not (and accompanying debate) is important, but condemnation doesn't need to be part of that. I've attended two churches that did it right, so I know not all churches are judgmental/ignorant.

As far as the woman is concerned, I consider her interests equal to that of her child. I truly don't consider that misogynistic. I could be wrong, but knowing what I do, I don't think so.

As far as the terms zygote and fetus, they are terms that have specific meaning in a scientific/medical context, but largely I think they are used to dehumanize. My view is simple. When fertilization occurs, the person begins to develop (live), until they die. There's no magic point at which they become something of value.

At any rate, I've always been a no abortion except in cases of incest, rape, and threat to mother person, but recently been examining that view. I'm not sure the reasons I'm against abortion in most cases don't apply to all abortions. And having watched two kids that are the products of rape, and one the product of incest, grow up, I have a hard time devaluing them. Would plucking them out of the womb and throwing them in a garbage can have been devaluing them? I kind of think so. kj.

I'm not sure the males at this forum should be those carrying the debate, none of them can become pregnant as a result of rape of any stripe. Seems to me this entire problem vis a`vis female contraception or avoidance of is a male* instituted conflagration of politics and religion .

* see Catholic Church dogma

Quote
Black

Quote
kj
But I still wonder why the child can not be allowed to develop? For me, it's a basal instinct; that you can't allow the rapist to do that, or that you have to make sure he doesn't get what he wants, or benefit from his heinous act, etc.

Weird-- when this discussion started I was sure the rape and pregnancy in question were taking place inside a woman's body, but at this point it's like the woman never existed and all this is taking place in a synthetic womb in some futuristic lab. That's quite a trick.

Howard, that is actually part of my point. The rape is all about the rapist and the woman. No woman should ever be subjected to such a thing. The man who rapes a woman should be dealt with in such a way as to ensure he never does it again. But once there is a child involved, the welfare of the mother, and the child should be considered. In my opinion, the value of the mother is not necessarily greater than that of the child. And when people imply that most kids who are the product of rapes are worthless, it makes me sick. I would think it's possible to value the resulting children, and hate the rapist's behavior. kj.

Quote
RgrF
I'm not sure the males at this forum should be those carrying the debate, none of them can become pregnant as a result of rape of any stripe. Seems to me this entire problem vis a`vis female contraception or avoidance of is a male* instituted conflagration of politics and religion .

* see Catholic Church dogma

I don't buy that argument. By the same reasoning, only disabled people should be able to argue for their rights, or immigrants for their rights, etc. Those who are a minority or are vulnerable would have no power without the voice of others who don't belong to their group. I also think it's somewhat funny that it's always brought up to exclude those men who are anti-abortion, but pro-choice help from those who are not female is welcomed. I've known an awful lot of guys who are pro-choice at least in part because at some point in their life, they weren't too excited about the responsibility they might have. Is that really very "pro-woman"? As I've mentioned many times before, it also assumes most women are pro-choice, and it's men who are preventing their welfare from being served. Unfortunately for that viewpoint, women are pretty equally split between the two stances, so getting the men out of the equation wouldn't change the landscape much. kj.

I did't say women should be the sole deciders. Haven't you noticed that most of these proposed bills are in fact solidly male sponsored?

Show us a Congressional bill to prevent women from having access to contraception sponsored by a woman - show us one!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2012 02:43AM by RgrF.

Quote

I suppose what I really mean by "gift" is that the child has potential to do all kinds of wonderful things.

Or be the next Hitler. You can't assume either way.

Quote

My view is simple. When fertilization occurs, the person begins to develop (live), until they die.

The vast majority of eggs die soon after fertilization or before implantation. They don't seriously develop. They die. When you start arguing human potential you've lost the argument. Anything can potentially happen at any time. You have to deal with what actually does happen.

If you get raped and want to have the baby, go right ahead. If you want to raise it, fine. If you want to adopt tit out, fine. If you don't want to have it, get an abortion. Fine. No one gets to decide for you. It's your choice. This isn’t complicated.

Your wonderful faith seems to sip right over the parts of the bible that have lots of rules for how rape should be handled.

Have you been raped? I'm guessing not. You might wish for more options if you were in that situation.

I don't see any point in trying to talk kj or anyone else who is anti-choice out of those views, which are obviously carefully considered and to which any person is entitled.
My only response to that is don't have an abortion if you are raped or the victim of incest or if your life is threatened by the pregnancy, if it's contrary to your beliefs. Isn't that obvious?
However, you have no right to legislate that decision for others.

This is the conversation we need to have. I don't really care what individuals believe about this, or why. We are supposed to be a nation that honors the diversity of belief about all sorts of things.
What I do care about is if they want to try and legislate those beliefs so that the beliefs of others become irrelevant. That's what the modern day GOP wants to do, they want abortion to be illegal in all cases. Their view is that only their views should matter, or carry any weight.
That's wrong. It's contrary to our nation's core values.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2012 10:41AM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
Black

Quote
kj
But I still wonder why the child can not be allowed to develop? For me, it's a basal instinct; that you can't allow the rapist to do that, or that you have to make sure he doesn't get what he wants, or benefit from his heinous act, etc.

Weird-- when this discussion started I was sure the rape and pregnancy in question were taking place inside a woman's body, but at this point it's like the woman never existed and all this is taking place in a synthetic womb in some futuristic lab. That's quite a trick.

This.

---

Quote
kj
I suppose what I really mean by "gift" is that the child has potential to do all kinds of wonderful things. The child has value. It's part of my faith, but I don't think it has to be cast off as religious dogma. I've known countless women who have chosen to have unplanned children even when the medical issues were complicated. Many are atheists, and for whatever reason, their conscience objected to abortion. One considered it "barbarous". There are a significant number of atheists who are anti-abortion. An anti-abortion stance does not have to be religious in nature. Btw, I think being "thankful" is another word that has little meaning without a god, but at the same time, it's not hard to come up with a secular analogue for it.

As far as condemnation, I don't believe it's Biblical. We're all sinners, and only saved by the grace of god. Of course, people being people, the sin of others tends to be more serious than our own. But that's not how it is supposed to be ("And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?). Of course, pointing out what's good and what's not (and accompanying debate) is important, but condemnation doesn't need to be part of that. I've attended two churches that did it right, so I know not all churches are judgmental/ignorant.

As far as the woman is concerned, I consider her interests equal to that of her child. I truly don't consider that misogynistic. I could be wrong, but knowing what I do, I don't think so.

As far as the terms zygote and fetus, they are terms that have specific meaning in a scientific/medical context, but largely I think they are used to dehumanize. My view is simple. When fertilization occurs, the person begins to develop (live), until they die. There's no magic point at which they become something of value.

At any rate, I've always been a no abortion except in cases of incest, rape, and threat to mother person, but recently been examining that view. I'm not sure the reasons I'm against abortion in most cases don't apply to all abortions. And having watched two kids that are the products of rape, and one the product of incest, grow up, I have a hard time devaluing them. Would plucking them out of the womb and throwing them in a garbage can have been devaluing them? I kind of think so. kj.

I'm not going to argue for the points I made when I formulated that last post because I was conflating: a) the zygote is the gift and b) the zygote is given a gift. I will say, though, that my argument for rejecting the use of the term "gift" because of the "moral condemnation" thing was flawed (perhaps somewhat because of the conflation, but I'm not sure). But since it is clear that the "gift" is from God and I don't believe in God, that is sufficient grounds in itself for me to reject the notion that there is a gift.

I think that a great many people do the same conflation (of a. and b. above) that I initially was guilty of. I think a lot of people do think of the zygote as the result of a rape is a gift from God to the woman. It's not surprising that a victim of rape would not accept that characterization. But you have made it clear now that you mean that the zygote is given a gift from God not that the zygote is a gift from God, so that doesn't apply to you. By your way of looking at it, people should not be saying "the zygote is a gift from God" - that is misleading - they should be saying "the zygote is given a gift from God". That would avoid the issue of the victim of rape getting the impression that the speaker expects them to look upon the zygote as a gift from God to them.

I still don't understand exactly what this gift is that God is said to be giving to the zygote. You said, "When fertilization occurs, the person begins to develop (live), until they die." How can it be "the person" if a zygote can develop into multiple individual Homo sapiens? Theoretically, with proper techniques we could keep cloning a single zygote indefinitely. With the right techniques, those zygotes cloned from the original zygote could also be cloned into an indefinite number of zygotes. What does the gift of becoming "a person" mean in that case?

As to your comments about the choice of using the term "zygote" as an effort to dehumanize - isn't that a type of question begging? By "dehumanize" I assume you mean something related to personhood because no one I know what say that a zygote the formed from the union of a human sperm and human egg was not a human zygote. But personhood is the issue in question. Your argument that the use of the term "zygote" is dehumanizing assumes that the zygote is a person, but that is the very thing I don't agree to. IOW, your argument has no force unless the very thing in question is agreed to; that seems like question begging to me.

I think this question begging extends into your point about value of the person who comes about as the result of a rape. I would agree that a person who comes about as a result of a rape has value - except, of course, I don't think they become a person of value at conception. Value does come with being a person, but we disagree with when a person becomes a person so implying that abortion is devaluing a person as an argument for not doing abortions assumes the thing in question - when it is that a person becomes a person.

It all does really rest on the question of when a person becomes a person because that you value the woman who is pregnant from a rape as much as the embryo that results from the rape means that if you don't see that zygote/embryo as a person then the balance of consideration goes to the rape victim. Essentially what you are saying if you think that a rape victim who becomes pregnant must go through the whole pregnancy and give birth is that even though doing that may be a horrible, horrible experience for the rape victim - and pregnancies are on average more dangerous to the health of the woman than abortions so they are also being asked to risk their health and their lives - avoiding all that is not valuable enough to outweigh the value to the zygote. The only reason all those terrible things for the rape victim don't outweigh the value to the zygote is because you assume the zygote is a person. It's a logically defensible position, but I think you can understand that from the emotional point of view of a rape victim who doesn't believe that a zygote is a person that what you are insisting she go through shows a lack of concern for her value.

Even though I can understand that those who have been indoctrinated to believe that a zygote is a person could want to protect that zygote, I am struck by how they seem to willfully ignore the fact that the laws that Akins, Ryan et al want to pass take power away from women and give it to rapists. Rape is about power, and you can be sure that a rapist will get vastly more pleasure when he knows that his violent act will be the gift that keeps on giving (to him) for the lifetime of the woman. This is the only way I can conceive of the word "gift" being connected with the word "rape".

There can be no doubt that thrusting an unwanted pregnancy and the child of a violent assailant upon a woman is a completely life changing experience with much more emotional, economic and physical impact than the act of rape itself. The Akins and Ryans of the world want to make the consequences of rape become lifelong for the victim rather than just being a brief unpleasant episode that they can potentially get beyond. There can be no doubt that these men who are so eager to ban abortion under any circumstances view the well-being of women as of no importance at all.

Prior to the modern era, rape was used by armies and tribes as a tool of subjugation to force captors to have the children of the conquerors instead of children borne of their own society. The availability of abortion has taken this power away. Now, these radical republicans seem to want to send us back in this direction. I find this to be absolutely disgusting.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2012 11:32AM by davester.

That's an interesting perspective Dave. Power over women is what it's all about.

That doesn't mean that a child who is the product of rape can't be a gift to her mother, she certainly can. But it should be the mother's choice to continue that pregnancy, or not.

Quote
Lemon Drop
Power over women is what it's all about.

That doesn't mean that a child who is the product of rape can't be a gift to her mother, she certainly can. But it should be the mother's choice to continue that pregnancy, or not.

The right wing Christian Taliban wing of the GOP want to legislate women back into the nineteenth century. They must be resisted.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

I can't figure out where this demonisation of women is coming from. What suddenly clicked in these guys' brains that made them decide that preventing women from having sexual congress was the most urgent thing on their plate?

---

Quote
$tevie
I can't figure out where this demonisation of women is coming from. What suddenly clicked in these guys' brains that made them decide that preventing women from having sexual congress was the most urgent thing on their plate?

As Spock said: "The right wing Christian Taliban wing of the GOP." These people are cut from the same cloth, along with the witch burners. The Americans are not quite a bad as the Taliban because they were lucky enough to have been born in a part of the world with a few more layers of civility and rule of law.

Quote
$tevie
I can't figure out where this demonisation of women is coming from. What suddenly clicked in these guys' brains that made them decide that preventing women from having sexual congress was the most urgent thing on their plate?

It's not like they can run on their economoc success or foeign policy extpertise. They can't be openly racist, er socialist, so all they've got is marginalized groups to go after - women, gays, welfare recipients, etc.