And I'm finally getting back to responding to DTOM:
I said (after DTOM suggested my argument was based on religious faith)
Quote:And here you build another strawman for in no place in my argument did I express religious faith or a 'go forth and multiply' mentality as any basis for my views on this subject, nor did I in any way even suggest that anyone be bound by the guidelines of my (or anybody else's) faith.
DTOM responded
Quote:you have in fact expressed your faith on several occasions in the past. so no, no herring and straw salad here. additionally, if you are a supporter of the pro-life agenda, you are indeed forcing your view of things onto those who do not share it.
since the pro-life movement constantly complains about the "secularist", as opposed to "sectarian", pro-choice proponents, it is only logical to consider that the vast majority of those leading and following the pro-life agenda are of a religious stripe.
a quick scan of the pro-life movement's leaders and backers will confirm that this is not a frivolous comment. perhaps not all anti-abortion people are very religious, but the secularists are certainly of a quite small percentage.
Perhaps not frivolous in your view, but a straw man nevertheless since I at no time have argued the prolife view from a religious perspective. I discuss my religious faith in threads in which the topic is religious faith. I think when you attempt to take it out of the context in which it was intended and put it into a religious perspective in order to discredit it, that is indeed a strawman argument however gently you do so.
My opinion is that an unborn baby is a human life. Others' opinions, and perhaps yours, are that it is not. If I say it is and you say it is not, how am I "forcing my view of things" on you any more than you are "forcing your view of things" on me? The way your comment reads is that only the proabortionists can have a noncoercive opinion.
i've been thinking about this. you keep mentioning strawmen, yet it appears to me that you have fallen back on the bullet point denunciation (via the comment that i am "fixated" on religion)that is essentially, "dtom is attacking people of faith".
when you say that you, or other pro-lifers, check their faith at the door of this debate, it is not only disingenuous, but factually wrong. see the link at the bottom that details the beginnings and leadership of the most powerful anti-choice orgs.
now as far as your remark about "forcing views" and if there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-life...
of course there is. i've given the example before, but here it is again;
pro-choice = the preganant woman decides. i abide by her decision.
pro-life = You decide. and insist that she abide by Your decision. (you and your are used in the general way here)
I then said
Quote:Or are you one of those who thinks that only the religious have moral values? Or that only people of faith express them? Or that people of faith can't express them because if they do they cram their religious faith down everybody else's throat?
to which DTOM responded
Quote:nope. i don't think that being religious is the only source of morality by a long stretch. it's actually the various established religions that proclaim themselves as the fount of all morality. and even they can't agree on what 'tis and what t'ain't. regard the current uproar in the episcopal church.
if a "person of faith" insists that people follow the rules of their religion whether they share that faith or no, then yes, it is cramming it down the throats of others.
does "teaching intelligent design in a science class" ring a bell ? wanna teach it in a comparitive religions or philosophy class, be my guest. but intelligent design is not science.
how about mandatory prayer in school ? i have no problem with "a moment of silent meditation", btw. worked just fine when i was in school. so what's changed ?
"being gay is a sin. no marriage for gays, says the bible". sound familiar ?
that's just a few instances where i feel, yes, some people of faith seek to force their beliefs on the public at large. and in some cases, doing it with public taxes via the "faith based initiatives". which, btw, are a new phenomenon put in place by george w. bush; the president who you denied is a religious zealot. considering that churches pay no taxes, i'd say that there's already a fair amount of cash available to them to perform good works.
So your quarrel is actually with the religious rather than the prolifers? This is the way it appears when you bring in all these other unrelated things. My argument has clearly been that you do not have to be religious to have moral values. And I have consistently argued the abortion issue based on universal values, not just religious ones. And again, all the other issues you're bringing up here are just strawman arguments dodging the specific issue being debated.
and still no straw. tell me, with a straight face, that the issues of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prayer in School and the whole "under God"/"Ten Commandements" flap do not have fully overlapping supporters and that the individual issues are not part and parcel of a more complete agenda.
Yes, the religious sometimes have, profess, and promote a particular point of view on various issues. But laws prevent not-for-profit religious groups (churches) from engaging in politics.
and yet they do it. "the christian coalition" ?
Individual people who are religious, however, will frequently take a position on various issues. As citizens of this country they have this silly notion that it is their unalienable right to do so. They may even band together into a secular organization that will lobby or petition their government to consider or enact legislation that they believe to be good legislation.* And you know what? So do nonreligious, atheists, environmentalists, PACs, etc. etc. etc. do the exact same thing.
The difference is, that if it is the nonreligious doing it, you seem to think that's okay. But if a person also has a religious faith, they are "forcing their beliefs on the public at large". Well, anybody who wants a particular law passed for anything is sort of doing that don't you think? And in our system of government, the majority, whether by referendum or via elected representatives, the majority ultimately prevails.
You know I love you dearly, DTOM, and have the utmost respect and appreciation for you. We are even sometimes on the same side of the page. But here your remarks sort of smack of prejudice and intolerance or at the very least appear to be irrational stereotyping. And again, that just isn't like you.
you can deny that faith enters the debate. you can deny that churches get involved in what they see as the sheparding of those without faith. you can also deny that the words and opinion delivered by a cleric have the additional weight of "fear of god", but we both know that that is not true.
remember the cleric who, during the last election, declared that it would be wrong for a person of faith to vote for kerry? and that kerry should be excommunicated ?
because of his pro-choice platform ?
(*Disclaimer: I in no way believe all religious operate in lockstep. There are conservative religious and liberal religious and more often than not people of faith will take opposing views on just about any issue anybody wants to bring up.).
while there's some truth to this, the fundis and more conservative faithful seem to have more inclination to steam roll anyone who disagrees with them. and to declare them evil.
foxy, you may remember that i was raised in the south and in the heart of the bible belt. if you'd like to discuss "intolerance", you may want to also walk a mile in my shoes before using that word towards me.
DTOM Said
Quote:wwwhhhhaaatttttttt ???? go back and re-read quotes of your comments. on top of everything else, you tell us that you became pregnant while on a birth control program. you chose to have the children. and i commend you for that. yet you don't seem to see any real situation in which another person would make the inverse choice acceptable.
by proxy, you are indeed saying "don't do the crime if ya can't do the time
If you have been reading my arguments through this and other threads, you would have seen that I have never been for outlawing all abortion. You would have also seen that all or at least the huge majority of other prolifers do not believe in outlawing all abortions.
if you say so. but i disagree. that pro-lifers seek to outlaw any abortion other than the ones that "they approve of" is at the core of the issue.
if you are not the pregnant woman, it is not your decision.
frankly, foxy. i don't see much difference between the "pro-enforced child bearing" movement's efforts to bring government to their demands and the policy of enforced child bearing limitations of the republic of china. in both cases, someone else is telling the pregnant woman what her destiny will be.
But I believe I am safe in speaking for most prolifers that the baby should not be sacrificed just because the guy found a warm place to put it.
but the woman's destiny should be ? am i to take from your comment that only men enjoy sex ?
Nor should the baby be sacrificed after it is born just because the parents find out they hate an hour of crying, losing sleep, being tied down, spending money on pediatricians, diapers, etc.
not sure what you mean here. but it does make me remember that an awful lot of folks that i've talked about choice with, and who are strict pro-lifers, are also dead set against the welfare program.
see, quite often, pro-lifers fail to take responsibility for their actions when the insist that a woman carry a child to birth.
if pro-lifers are to take responsibility for the "pre-born person", as you called the fetus, then you must also take responsibility for the "post born fetus".
you can't just walk away ad say, "well, i saw that baby born. my work here is done".
Again for me, the whole issue is not just the unalienable rights of the woman that I would defend to the death. For me, it is once pregnancy occurs, there are two lives to consider, not one. And her rights don't trump the rights of the other life. So just as all parents should be required to accept responsibility-educating, feeding, clothing, innoculating, nurturing, loving, etc.-the children they produce, the same principle applies to the new life still within the womb. If she can't provide for this new life, she should see that somebody will.
and who would that be ? randall terry ? jerry falwell ? james dobson ? pat robertson ?
you ?
would You take an unwanted child into your arms as if it were your own? if yes, how many ?now that is straw.
I said
Quote:Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one.
DTOM responded
Quote:i'm not a big fan of third trimester abortion. nor do i like partial birth.
i have never made a secret of my belief that "with choice comes responsibility". a woman should be informed and able to make a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy long before the third trimester.
does that answer your question ?
No, you didn't even address my question.
oooohhhhh yes i did. read it again.
And in response to my discussion of when the forming baby becomes a human being, DTOM responded
Quote:"clumps of cells" ? that is the one thing that is known about it. truth is, even post partum, we are all just clumps of cells. just a bigger clump. that is science.
the pro-lifers would probably be more accurate if their argument centered around "when does a soul enter the clump of cells". . . .and for my further edification, could you tell me, with the certainty of science backing your assertion; "at what point in your graph does a soul become manifest?".
See, here again you return to the religious issue which I did not raise at all. But you vehemently protested when I suggested you are fixated on religion.
ooohhhh no you don't. hahahahaha!
you can continue to pretend that the pro-life movement is not made up of a majority of "faith" people, but you know it's only pretending.
and you did not answer my question, m'love.
On the South Dakota issues, if you will read what I said earlier when this first came up, you will see that I thought their bill was way too extreme and thought that was unfortunate. I don't think Roe v Wade is all that bad a ruling; however, I would prefer that the states or even the local communities be able to decide the abortion issue.
Finn's recent post is brilliant in why rulings like Roe v Wade are often not the way to go and actually usurp the principle of a democratic republic.
I do understand the proabortion position and I have all the compassion in the world for those who are forced into abortion for those reasons where it is absolutely necessary. It is especially heartbreaking for those who so very much wanted the child. But for me, ending the life of a perfectly healthy baby purely for the convenience of the adults is not what America is all about.
