Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new
Last post


Kerry wrote: So far, Zenzoe,

Kerry wrote:

So far, Zenzoe, where's the 'strawman argument' here that my 'hyperbole' is creating?

I don't read the entirety of your texts, Kerry, because I like to limit my reading to texts that uplift, inform, or entertain me. I only read texts I disagree with, if they're short enough, and clear enough to get through unscathed. Yours do none of the positive things I mention and only make my head hurt. If you could reduce your arguments to a line or two, we might get somewhere.

Anyway, as for the quote, above, I didn't say it was your hyperbole, per se. There's been plenty of hyperbole to go around, even from me. And the straw man argument is the one where you use "sucking brains out right before birth," as if that's a real event you must concern yourself with or the world will fall apart. It's a non-issue, Kerry. Its only use for you is as a straw man, put there to inflame the subject and distract yourself from the option of being reasonable.

You won't see that, but what the hey. Stew in your juice, if that's what you want to do.

Kerry's picture
The "sucking brains out right

The "sucking brains out right before birth" is D_NATURED's militant, rather ruthless 'Ayn Randian-type', description of 'empowering women', Zenzoe--not mine (despite all the rather hypocritical accusations towards me, including now, as being the one who described it that way, to the contrary)--and it was even a description that you condoned as being 'D_NATURED's way of supporting women' (which I believe that you tied into your admiration of such men 'being chivalrous').   So, your attempts to claim that, all along, 'you' were all for 'uplifting, informing, entertaining' conversation is a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?   You did your part to egg on 'the clan'--in fact, as I see it, since you seem to be the only female member in this ongoing so-called 'discussion', you directed the character of the conversation for the clan all along--with all those men tiptoeing around this contention of rights that elective abortions really involve (that you denied) to your credit as a woman.  

Is this a 'reasonable' discussion?   Is that really what you wanted, Zenzoe?  It was about as 'reasonable' as you and your clan's tacit acceptance of "sucking fetal brains out right before birth" on D_NATURED's part as being a 'reasonable' rendition of 'empowering women' in elective abortion issues.....that's not a 'strawman argument' on my part since, by definition, if I were the one to produce it as a 'strawman's argument', I would have been the one that had created the description to 'argue against' in ignoring any other reasonable issue in this discussion--which I was not.   And, also, Zenzoe, how 'reasonable' is such dire circumstances as 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and any supposed risks to the mother's life' in a discussion on the free choice involved (and the absolute right that is to contain--with its eventual concurring responsibility to the life of the fetus) in elective abortions?   And, about as 'reasonable' as DRC telling me to go to hell and Ulysses' constant slander on my capacity as a physician.....right, Zenzoe.....

It is the very way that you and your clan characterized, and argued, elective abortions that was actually unreasonable--in the manner you claim to 'hold the cause' and supposedly rationalize it.   But, then, in the 'new paradigm' way of promoting 'community interest', rationalism (and the 'balance' such thinking intrinsically contains) isn't enough, is it?   But, even with that, something was wrong according to the clan as to how I would handle a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer right in line with "sucking fetal brains out right before birth".....what 'reason' was rationally being offered there that you and your clan used to condemn the former as you tacitly condoned the latter when D_NATURED used it--but accused me when I addressed it? 

Kerry wrote: The "sucking

Kerry wrote:

The "sucking brains out right before birth" is D_NATURED's militant, rather ruthless 'Ayn Randian-type', description of 'empowering women', Zenzoe--not mine

But you use it constantly. And that's the point.

Kerry's picture
But, my using it constantly

But, my using it constantly isn't a strawman argument, Zenzoe.  D_NATURED made the description--and you have condoned it as long as D_NATURED is talking about it--you (and the rest of the clan) only bring up any accusations against it when I talk about it.   And that's the point, Zenzoe.   Right in line with all the clan....and clannish know, like condoning in your friends what you condemn in your enemies...

Kerry's picture
So, after a thousand posts on

So, after a thousand posts on this issue, what does the 'sane conversation about abortion' come down to?   Maybe this:  Does it take completely disrespecting pregnancies (and the fetus involved) to show respect for women (and their choices)?  

And, maybe a corrolary to that question is:  What position promotes 'mutual respect'--and what position promotes contempt and resentment in this ongoing 'war on women's issues' when it comes to elective abortions?   

And, I think it would be better that each address those questions from the perspective of individuals than as 'groups' or 'communities' (after all, there are many examples where government, in its attempts to 'promote equality', ends up in its rather 'grouped' and bureaucratic manner of 'endorsement' with the perhaps unintended consequences of creating 'contempt and resentment' in their actions--that's why I don't think that government should be 'playing favorites'....).   That's why I really do think that the Warren Supreme Court that judged Roe vs. Wade is right on target--this issue concerns the contention between individual rights as any concerned citizen could see them....the choice of the mother/the right to life of the fetus....and I think that 'we' can reduce the contempt and resentment possibilities in its applications when 'we' understand and speak of this issue in those terms.....despite how the clan, claiming that 'I' was the 'disingenuous one', wanted to augment and manipulate that into 'community interest', 'dire circumstances', even 'victimhood triumphancy', postures.....when appliced politically in the wrong setting, all more proned to induce contempt and resentment (and go against 'mutual respect') than I truly believe a concerned effort in defining and determining the 'contention of individual rights' could do in describing this issue of elective abortions..... 

CollegeConservative's picture
how bout 14th amendment

how bout 14th amendment protection if life begins at conception isnt abortion murder then?

Kerry's picture
Well, CollegeConservative,

Well, CollegeConservative, that is the whole point in this, isn't it?   When does a human life with rights begin?   If there is to be a natural answer to that question, 'at conception' isn't quite as 'cut and dry' as you may think--about 20% of all pregnancies naturally miscarry (and almost all of them do so early on in the gestation).   And, if human life with rights were to be seen as beginning at conception, why haven't any of the many, many, miscarriages been named and handled like deaths as everyone else''s death would have been (with death certificates, investigations into their untimely deaths, buried, etc.)?   Also, just exactly like what Roe vs. Wade noted in its oral arguments, if life with rights were to begin at conception, why hasn't any woman who has committed her own abortion ever been charged with murder like never before?    All the laws that have ever dealt with abortions have limited their concern only to anyone helping that woman--not the woman, herself.   But, then, that was at a time when the sanctity of the individual were still in political play--unlike the present debacle that 'we' have gotten ourselves into now (by ignoring the sanctity of the individual for some 'new paradigm' that includes 'community interest', 'dire circumstances' and 'victimhood triumphancy').   Even to the point to where now I have recently heard that some Alabama law now charges a drug-addicted woman with manslaughter if her child is born also drug addicted and whose withdrawal kills that child (but, if that mother were to face her own consequences in the manner of responsibility that she were offered, she should have aborted that child when she could have, so, maybe there is a point to that law....).      

There's room enough to go apeshit both ways on this 'war on women's issues' that includes elective abortions.   I think the answer is fairly simple:  If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.   If it takes a special procedure to kill the fetus in order for it not to come out alive, it could have come out alive.   Otherwise, prior to any age consistent with fetal viability, the woman has the right to choose what to do with that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all.   Politically, the contention is between the rights of the mother to choose until that fetus can be determined to have a right to life (which I see as naturally being only when that fetus can live).   Personally, and prior to any contention of a fetal right to life, as far as any moral obligations to 'justify' that abortion, there is none--as Jefferson would have put it, that contention is between that person and God (or whatever 'integrity binding' capacity that person holds to any moral or ethical conduct, if any, personallly--even though, as I've said before, that when there is a contention of rights to be considered politically, there is a need, and responsibility, to justify any imposition offered by anyone or anything--and that can include moral and ethical justifications--in other words, politics is not without moral and ethical justifications--and cannot be if a truly democratic governing position is to be effectively enacted--in other words, 'lies' cannot run a true democracy for long--and, that's even if personal conduct that is not imposing on another's rights may be considered to be absent such moral and ethical justifications from such a political perspective--again, that is to be between 'that person and God' when no one else and their rights is concerned--that's how I read how the framers of America--especially Thomas Jefferson--saw this issue....and, the question with the fetus becomes 'When does a human life with rights begin?'.....)......

12/11/12 -  Sanity in NC:

12/11/12 - 

Sanity in NC: ‘Choose Life’ license plates ruled unconstitutional