whaleofashrimp said:
and yes..what i'm saying is that everyoine has the right to live...if we disregaurd that right it's only a matter of time till social undisierables are denied the right to live
...i'd think you'd be one of those people decrying the eatting of meat because it's killinhg life
]yet your ok with ripping children out of the womb ...am i the only one who see's the disconnect?
RnJ said:
whaleofashrimp, I've thought about the animal liberation + abortionist disconnect before.
#1 - I
am for animal liberation - this does not mean (non-human) animals never die, it means they are not enslaved and viewed/used as property, that they are regarded as brethren of the Earth, each as special/insignificant as every person. This thread won't become a debate on diet; I'll just note that whatever my diet consists of or excludes, I don't see how it affects the state of the planet or the welfare of farm-slaves - unfortunately. (Feel free to start some new thread if you want to see this discussed/argued.)
#2 - I don't want to make eating meat illegal, and of the MANY vegetarians/vegans I know, none of them have ever suggested this to me. Animals have a place on this Earth as consumers and providers. Wolves need to eat deer, deer need to eat grasses, grasses and soil need to eat the wolves. We humans should be a part of that cycle, that interplay.
#3 - If a pig wants to abort its babies, I have no problem with that. If a cow wants to commit suicide, again: no problem. And if a zebra kicks and kills an attacking hyena - or is taken down and eaten by the hyena - it doesn't bother me one bit, either way. Y'see, that's the parallel, and the distinction, between human abortions and the lives of other animals. Those animals are free, independent, and competing and struggling to survive. They can die, they can be killed, but they should live free is my POV. So should human mothers live free, able to decide what they do with their own bodies. It's a great quote
monkeywrench delivered in post #65.
whaleofashrimp said:
it seems like... something has to be completely right or completely wrong and once an opinion is formed inconvenient questions are avoided ,attacked and ignored. Theres no room for ambiguity or holding a belief while considering and accepting the flaws in that belief
...why does everything have be divided between this side and that side?
why cant someones views be complicated and nuanced rather then one side or another
That's a fair point, but the way your initial post (and second, and maybe third) came across, you weren't just teasing out the little details while being solidly on one side. Rather, it appeared that you were staking out a firm position on the opposite side of where you've now said that you stand.
It's not about "back-slapping"; you wrote that abortions are done to stop gays and rebels from being born, and that's utter nonsense. Even if it was true, that's no argument for banning abortion; should we abolish the Internet for being used to trade kiddie porn, send computer viruses, and hack bank accounts? (In fact, I think it's still within any pregnant mother's right to choose whatever reason she doesn't want to carry and birth a child - whatever reason.)
There are ambiguities and moral compromises to everyday life itself, man. Mostly nobody says they want to do harm, but we do it nonetheless, in a million different ways.
One of my main problems in this specific issue is that with all the conflict a woman might feel and tough decision she may face when with an unexpected pregnancy, with all this dilemma weighing on her shoulders, self-righteous, dogmatic hypocrites - men, all too often - will holler above all others that these affected women should be subordinated and compelled by the State to have a baby. Why not just think that it's an unfortunate decision, but a very difficult and personal one, and simply decide to shut your mouth and let the woman involved make the choice herself? "Because it's an innocent life?" C'mon, every year God aborts more "life" than all the clinics in the whole world, we just label that "miscarriage". I've never seen anyone racked with guilt over having to eat an egg or chicken breast, because people know they need to consume calories, and most people prioritize their own lives and those within their species over other humans and foreign species. So let's drop the whole "killing innocent life" pretense.
macks said:
...the biggest part of this issue is moral, and the biggest question deals with whether it is right or wrong to abort a child. People can (and do) argue about morality all day without getting anywhere...
Yes, we don't all share the same perspective. I'd say that those who seem themselves as "morally pure" (and they must if they're condemning mothers choosing abortion) are deluded. The very concept is a farce.
finn said:
Unless you believe you don't have the right to decide what lives off your body and what doesn't.
Yeah, 'zackly.
How many bacterial killings occur when you scratch your arm? How many mosquitoes do you allow to nurse off your blood supply? Those seem a bit more alive to me than a carrot or a fetus. We do what we need to do for our own interest, whether terminating pregnancy, chopping down trees, eating vegetables and animals, or killing a person.
Nobody is or ought to be compelled to allow something to dominate one's life, and to think that something which doesn't burden men (pregnancy) should be the one exception where "killing" is disallowed is
completely sexist.
whaleofashrimp said:
...no matter what are issues we have to respect our mothers for not aborting us, anyway
Uhh... what? Do you think you'd really be miffed if Mom had aborted you, instead? Yeah, I might be bothered if I was aborted, but I know my Ma is so great, I'd get over it.
