View on abortion

[Rope64]

Let's just say that there are multiple creators of the child, and the ultimate Creator is Nature itself. Such a creative process doesn't inherently bestow a right to destroy, in that once something is created, it is distinct from its Creator(s).

There ARE plenty willing to adopt. The very fact of the popularity of overseas adoptions and the long waiting lists is proof of that. I resent the notion that you should have to adopt someone to keep them from being slaughtered. No one would dream of closing down nursing homes and telling people, "Well, if you don't adopt these elderly folk, we will have to kill them all." It's absurd and a poor defense for murder.

I respect everyone here, but I also respectfully disagree with your logic and views. That is all that I have to say on this topic.

Your position makes much more sense when you state it as a religious belief -- which is what it is -- as you have done here. But I believe that libertarians have a pretty strong and consistent view on imposing religious beliefs on other people, one that I agree with.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Your position makes much more sense when you state it as a religious belief -- which is what it is -- as you have done here. But I believe that libertarians have a pretty strong and consistent view on imposing religious beliefs on other people, one that I agree with.

I can understand that. However, it is also objective scientific fact, unlike most views. I am not acting solely on my faith. In fact, my faith is based to a large degree on science. My religious beliefs on this matter have strong, non-sectarian, support from medical science.

 

[entitled]

It's time for me to bow out of this thread.

My oldest child has been called demon spawn - he was the result of a rape.

It has spiralled into a round of insults thrown between a few people.

There has been talk of adoption, which is a touchy subject for me because i would gladly adopt the world if i could. Unfortunately, i'm not allowed.


Please take other people's feelings into consideration from this point on.

 

[Rope64]

What is Nature for one species is not Nature for others. Man's nature is more evolved, both for the better and for the worse. "Ordo natura", as applied to man, is more a matter of respect for each other. There IS some fighting, but not to the point of extermination. We are not goats. We are humans. Humans have natural bonding with our children, for instance. Snakes and other reptiles often neglect them. Our evolution has produced distinct primal urges. Don't confuse all species with each other and lump them all together.

Anyway, enough of this topic. I am getting angry, and need to switch to a different one, just I can calm down.

Don't confuse all people with each other and lump them together. What seems "man's nature" to you is not necessarily anything of the sort to someone else -- who is a greater authority than the man himself in determining what a given man's nature is? We don't necessarily get to follow our own natures with impunity, but the extent to which we are reasonably limited from doing so cannot be derived from the nature we are being forbidden to follow, can it?

 

[Sex and Death]

I personally take the view that your labor and the fruits thereof are your property, along with anything that you are willing to defend, provided that isn't a person. People are not possessions. As to everything being a stewardship, ultimately, that is correct, in the sense that Nature owns it and we are part of Nature. We do not keep it after death. Even so, children are sovereign persons, only being controlled for a short time (until their majority), at which point they are responsible for their own fates. In what way does that stewardship by the parents give them a right to murder those in their care?

Something has to die for something else to live.

The big fish eat the little fish.

Such are the laws of the jungle of life.

That makes it no less moral or immoral to kill and murder.

Babies die and are killed and murdered.

My sadness and anger is around the fact that we have a deficit of mature men and women in our culture willing to take repsonsibility to make hard decisions and guide others in doing so when they cannot do so themselves. There is always the risk of being "wrong" and of damaging others in some way. A sovereign is not someone who has ultimate and final power and authority. A sovereign is someone who surrenders to a power and wisdom greater than themselves and attempts to serve others from that their connection with that greater power and wisdom.

This will most likely be a very unpopular position.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I REALLY wish there were a way to put specific threads on ignore. These political threads are so masturbatory- and I have better ways to use my wanking time.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't recall insulting ANYONE, and I apologize if any of my remarks came across as insults. I just have strong opinions on this and other issues. And, no, I don't think that the government should automatically impose or legislate "pagan morality" any more than it should Christian or Jewish morality. I just happen to think that, for once, the major religions agree with mine for good reasons. I also think that this is an objective, medical position, not JUST a religious one (though my religious beliefs ARE tied in here).

 

[zeb1094]

I REALLY wish there were a way to put specific threads on ignore. These political threads are so masturbatory- and I have better ways to use my wanking time.

There is, don't click on it! Simple, huh?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Something has to die for something else to live.

The big fish eat the little fish.

Such are the laws of the jungle of life.

That makes it no less moral or immoral to kill and murder.

Babies die and are killed and murdered.

My sadness and anger is around the fact that we have a deficit of mature men and women in our culture willing to take repsonsibility to make hard decisions and guide others in doing so when they cannot do so themselves. There is always the risk of being "wrong" and of damaging others in some way. A sovereign is not someone who has ultimate and final power and authority. A sovereign is someone who surrenders to a power and wisdom greater than themselves and attempts to serve others from that their connection with that greater power and wisdom.

This will most likely be a very unpopular position.

That is a new, and frankly, dubious definition in my book. And I doubt that any fetus would surrender its fate in such a way to the "superior wisdom' of the mother, if given a vote on the issue. Man is NOT a lesser primate. We have developed a higher neocortex with higher thought processes, as well as a more rational and responsible way of social interaction. And I personally don't trust anyone who would PRESUME to take charge of me in the political realm. I prefer a republic, and NOT Plato's.

 

[silverwhisper]

stella: but you can stop reading 'em any time you want, right? :>

ed

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Don't confuse all people with each other and lump them together. What seems "man's nature" to you is not necessarily anything of the sort to someone else -- who is a greater authority than the man himself in determining what a given man's nature is? We don't necessarily get to follow our own natures with impunity, but the extent to which we are reasonably limited from doing so cannot be derived from the nature we are being forbidden to follow, can it?

Such logic sounds circular and sophistic. I base my understanding of human Nature on our surviving instincts, primal urges, our similarity to the chimpanzee, our social organization (where we do congregate, but in a way that doesn't destroy individuality), and the fact that certain impulses cannot be eliminated, regardless of how long historical societies have tried to destroy or curtail them. Such basic urges are clearly meant to stay, so they should be respected, not attacked (I speak primarily of sex, since it is the clearest case of irrepressible urges).

 

[BlackSnake]

It's time for me to bow out of this thread.

My oldest child has been called demon spawn - he was the result of a rape.

It has spiralled into a round of insults thrown between a few people.

There has been talk of adoption, which is a touchy subject for me because i would gladly adopt the world if i could. Unfortunately, i'm not allowed.


Please take other people's feelings into consideration from this point on.

It's hard keeping up when you have work going on.

I wish every woman could choose life. Women are the only ones who can bring life into this world. You can tell some men hate that, they are trying to create life in a test tube .

The debate over when life begins is moot. We have no what of knowing. Someone came up with an idea “hey, let’s say it’s when we can scan the brain for activity” some people buy into one theory or the other.

Only a woman should be able to choose to have a child or not. If she chooses to have one child from menstruation until her egg basket is empty. It is up to her.

I disagree with not choosing life, but I believe it is up to her and I really really really hope she will always choose life, even if its in case of rape or incest.

 

[Rope64]

Such logic sounds circular and sophistic. I base my understanding of human Nature on our surviving instincts, primal urges, our similarity to the chimpanzee, our social organization (where we do congregate, but in a way that doesn't destroy individuality), and the fact that certain impulses cannot be eliminated, regardless of how long historical societies have tried to destroy or curtail them. Such basic urges are clearly meant to stay, so they should be respected, not attacked (I speak primarily of sex, since it is the clearest case of irrepressible urges).

Chimpanzees regularly practice infanticide, as have many -- perhaps most -- primitive human societies. You seem to be picking and choosing among the "natural" impulses in deciding which ones you want to have respected: this is hardly a logical position.

 

[Rope64]

Also, while my logic may have sounded circular, it really was nothing of the sort.

 

[Norajane]

Man is NOT a lesser primate. We have developed a higher neocortex with higher thought processes, as well as a more rational and responsible way of social interaction.

This is precisely my position as it relates to cheating. Yet, there are those who believe man cheats because it is in his nature to plant seeds all over the place, and it's a fact of life we have to live with.

By the same token, you cannnot separate a woman's neocortex and higher thought processes from her body. Yet, that's exactly what you propose when you advocate arbitrary rules about when she can and can't have an abortion. As long as she can carry the child without serious medical issues or her death, you want her to abdicate all thought on the issue.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In this, my reasoning is almost biblical- weird as that sounds- she is the creator, she has the right to destroy.

I know there are those who would argue with you, Stella...
I just want to appreciate the circular beauty of this...

 

[BlackSnake]

...

I feel that any woman has the right to abort, for any reason at all- if it's because she doesn't want stretch marks, I'll support that decision because such a shallow reason marks her as an unfit mother.

In this, my reasoning is almost biblical- weird as that sounds- she is the creator, she has the right to destroy.

As it happens, it's a very, very difficult thing to do, and most women truly grieve when put to the mark. All the rhetoric about "stretch marks" etc is mostly propoganda from the anti-choice brigade. yes, it happens, but- there are a lot of marginaly psychotic people out there, and some of them are women.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, any man who says that an unwanted child should be adopted had bettter be ready to adopt. The same society that makes it so difficult for a woman to implement her own decisions, also makes it incredibly difficult for the babies to find adoptive possibilities- single women and even more so single men, for the most part, cannot adopt. At the same time thousands- I don't know the numbers- of children remain without a family here in the US, thousands of families are going overseas in order to bring a child home.
In the nineties, there were several cases where a court would remove a child from it's adoptive fmily- long after the family had boned with the baby, in the expectation that their emotional security was assured. This put a pall on the US adoptive process, and is another factor that sent many of my friends to China, Korea, and the Czech Republic.

The Chinese where aborting the female babies.

I mentioned the bit about "marks" and such, but please stay with me. I think we should all fight for a woman's right to choose. I do feel that the only good reason to abort is in case of it causing her to die.

These statments may sound contridictory, but they are not. Here comes my religious side:

God gave woman, and only woman the ability to bring human life into this world. She alone determine our existance.

I want to live forever on earth, though the seed of my father and his father before him to the beginning of man, my brothers.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Chimpanzees regularly practice infanticide, as have many -- perhaps most -- primitive human societies. You seem to be picking and choosing among the "natural" impulses in deciding which ones you want to have respected: this is hardly a logical position.

They are not the sole guide here. Also, the primitive humans didn't know about the medical facts. WE do. I am simply trying to build a society based on respecting primal urges, instincts, etc.

And it sounded rather circular to me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This is precisely my position as it relates to cheating. Yet, there are those who believe man cheats because it is in his nature to plant seeds all over the place, and it's a fact of life we have to live with.

By the same token, you cannnot separate a woman's neocortex and higher thought processes from her body. Yet, that's exactly what you propose when you advocate arbitrary rules about when she can and can't have an abortion. As long as she can carry the child without serious medical issues or her death, you want her to abdicate all thought on the issue.

Man's nature is polyamorous, and that is not separate from being a higher primate. If he cheats, however, that is a matter of dishonesty, which I abhor. I find it fascinating that so many will condone murder, however, while condemning infidelity.

I do not consider the fetus to be simply part of the woman's body. I consider he or she a distinct person, over whom the woman should not usurp the right to control life and death.

 

[BlackSnake]

They are not the sole guide here. Also, the primitive humans didn't know about the medical facts. WE do. I am simply trying to build a society based on respecting primal urges, instincts, etc.

And it sounded rather circular to me.

Maybe we should listen more to our instincts.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Maybe we should listen more to our instincts.

Add "intuition" to that and I'm with ya...

 

[BlackSnake]

Man's nature is polyamorous, and that is not separate from being a higher primate. If he cheats, however, that is a matter of dishonesty, which I abhor. I find it fascinating that so many will condone murder, however, while condemning infidelity.

I do not consider the fetus to be simply part of the woman's body. I consider he or she a distinct person, over whom the woman should not usurp the right to control life and death.

Sometimes people use analogies to distort issues and to make their seem more credible.

I don't think that it should take crap about monkeys to make your point.

I'm against abortion because? To me, bring life into the world is a miracle.

See. That was easy. Now try this also:

I am for a woman's right to choose to have a child or not because? She alone was give to power to bring life into this world.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Maybe we should listen more to our instincts.

That's all I am saying. However, man is naturally inventive, as well. This leads to us changing more rapidly at times than our biological development can handle. At times, we have "invented" religions and social systems at variance with our natural urges, thus leading to conflict between our inventions and our instincts.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Sometimes people use analogies to distort issues and to make their seem more credible.

I don't think that it should take crap about monkeys to make your point.

I'm against abortion because? To me, bring life into the world is a miracle.

See. That was easy. Now try this also:

I am for a woman's right to choose to have a child or not because? She alone was give to power to bring life into this world.

I respect, but do not share, your matriarchal view of procreation.

 

[zeb1094]

Now comes the question of whether a clone is a sentient being and when it becomes one?