Abortion showdown looms after S. Dakota ban

OK, so I'm tired of the whining and crying threads. I remember when we discussed all sorts of weighty matters here at PTT and this is always a juicy one.

There is one thing is this law and the reporting on it that I find interesting. While the ban prohibits abortions in cases of rape and incest, those cases are allowed emergency contraceptives, which I translate into the "morning after" pill. So wouldn't that take care of those situations (however rare they may be)? This tidbit seems to be buried in most of the coverage I've read on this (except for CNN.com. They edited it out of the story I read).

Personally, I think its a good idea. Saving the life of the mother is a good compromise as well as the emergency contraceptives. I really don't see the need for an abortion outside of that, especially after the 1st trimester.

More thoughts are sure to follow. ;)

Last edited: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 7:59:48 AM

Page 3 snypa

"uphill climb"

No I think its a downward climb.

You could just say climb...

MM: I thought I was too. I really don't like religious debates because they can't help but be personal. I don't like the abortion debate because it can't help but be religious...i guess I just dislike quasi-logic more than I dislike this subject. Believe me, I understand why religious folks feel the way they do about the issue. I just don't understand why they think that we irreligious or rational religious folks should buy into their premises. This is about the laws of man, not the laws of (you god's name here). I believe your religious views can help you come to a decision on this subject, but please just state it as it should be stated: "I believe...." don't attempt to rationalize your religious beliefs please. There is no rational explanation for your beliefs. You believe because you believe. You have faith because you do. Your reasons are personal. Personal reasons aren't generally logical and almost never compelling when taking into the view of public decision making.

Jakers: about your pedantry...let's try it your way: "You face a[n] [uphill] climb, because your propositions proceed...etc." "you face a climb?" sounds pretty flat. In fact, it is a tad confusing that way. What kind of climb? A tree climb? A stair climb? A mountain climb? I suppose you could say "hill" climb. "you face a hill climb...." no, I like it the way I wrote it but your criticism of the redundancy is noted. Thanks for your input. "uphill climb" is a well worn metaphor, actually. Are you saying that I've descended down the path of cliche? A down-ward plummet?

Wow, Stink, I really got you riled, didn't I? :)

Once I cut out all the meaningless insults from your post, it basically (as I have understood it) boils down to this:

1. Authoritative morality (based on an external source) is not morality at all, since it is nothing more than obedience to a list of commands.

By the way, nice duck-and-cover, there. I commend your careful avoidence of a direct question. I can only assume that you do actually have some position but are keeping it up your sleeve for later. In the meantime, I stand by what I said and am still waiting for you to point out a flaw. Authority derived from self is arbitrary, and therefore useless as a code of conduct. We can discuss this more if you'd like, but please restrain your impulse to simply attack everyone else's opinion and try to communicate one of your own.

2. Christianity really isn't that different from Islam.

Wouldn't that be nice for you? But, no, I actually did more than regurgitate on this one. Although Islam does claim many similarities to the Christian faith, their underlying themes of violence and retribution are in stark contrast to the themes of Christianity. Also, the ideas of salvation represented in the Koran are very different from the message of Christ.

On to my favorite accusation...

3. My faith cannot be argued reasonably, and I use my own beliefs to substantiate what I believe.

Wrong again. I have not begun by arguing for my beliefs on this thread, because that is not the topic of this thread. However, that hardly means I have never considered them. Also, please don't refer to logic and reason as "tools." They are absolutes of nature, discovered, not created, by man. And the existence of God is very reasonable. Descartes (of Cogito Ergo Sum fame) said this: "I must necessarily conclude from all I have said hitherto, that God exists; for, although the idea of substance is in me, for the very reason that I am a substance, I would not nevertheless, have the idea of an infinite substance, since I am a finite being, unless the idea had been put into me by some substance which was truly infinite... [And] how would it be possible for me to know that I doubt and desire, that is to say, that I lack something and am not all perfect, if I did not have in me any idea of a more perfect being than myself, by comparison with which I know the deficiencies of my nature?" You gotta love the written language of days gone by. Thank you, Rene.

So, if there is then a perfect God, then His actions must be the standard by which we judge perfection and morality. Apart from a perfect standard, morality is based on imperfection, and therefore flawed at its core. The very fact that we can conceive of right and wrong means we understand the need for perfection and thus, being imperfect, must have received this knowledge externally. There are many other aspects of this argument, but I have no desire to expound it for two reasons: one, it is off topic for this thread, and two, you really don't care anyway. That is made clear by your tone and your continued attacks in a childish, sarcastic way.

I'll say this again: if you have an opinion, please present it, but don't peddle your criticism as argument. Tally, I don't see any reason for you to attack KKB like that. What does it accomplish besides ill will on both sides? Am I talking to adults, or middle schoolers? Please, just keep this thread civil and let's argue this in a logical way. Stink, I am going to continue arguing from the stance that God exists. If you want to fight about it, start a new thread and we can lock horns there.

@stink - I do need a little clarification from you on something concerning the death of Iraqis. Should I be upset that some are dying as a result of coalition collateral damage or under the fist of their former tyranical dictator or the actions of "insurgents"? Somehow it just seems to be Allah's will that those pesky folks die, regardless of who happens to be the instrument of God.

But seriously, let's say I take what I preceive as your position, that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. Fair enough, but then I should be upset that Saddam was killing his own people, right? That did bother me. It also bothers me that the insurgents (i.e. Terrorists) are willing to kill their own people a) in case they're standing too close to a soldier (coalition or Iraqi) or b) to start a civil war. But we know those instances are different that what we're talking about here. Nice jab though.

I don't think that indicates a need for perfection...it indicates a need for justice, guidelines, laws; to keep us living in relative peace as opposed to our barbaric ancestry (although we are still barbaric in some ways today). The ground rules we lay keep us from offing each other willy-nilly.

For nearly all intents and purposes, perfection is unattainable. Often, perfection is much like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. More realistically, our laws and lives are bound by levels of "tolerance" as opposed to perfection. A set of "close-enoughs" if you will.

.
Again, this is the focal point of the disagreement. You and Stink are at an impasse...neither is going to convince the other, as this piece of information is not in agreement - it is not fact for both parties.

This thread was about abortion, not religion?

Percival:
1. Correct. Yes, answer my question, and I'll work on my response if and only if you can give an authoratiative account for the authenticity of the external source.

2. Stating something twice doesn't make it so. And you talk about my lack of proofs.

3.

You may not have begun in this fashion, but you devolved not long after. I supose it was all a matter of timing?

Reason and logics as "absolutes" of nature.

LOGIC:

REASON:

http://en.wikipedia.org

Your understanding of reason and logic don't appear to be in sync with these definitions. Your understanding has a certain "taint." to it. Appears to bend unnaturally to serve something. Gee, I wonder what?

Decartes..."I would not nevertheless, have the idea of an infinite substance, since I am a finite being, unless the idea had been put into me by some substance which was truly infinite.." you call that solid reasoning? I call it classic hackery. What do expect from someone who said that he had found the location of the soul, and it was in the...pineal gland? "I'm finite, so how can I have an idea of the infinite unless god put it into my head?" good lord! Its childish. I used to have the idea of boogey-man in mine. But I never actually conceded his existence. Turned out: I had something called an imagination.

And then you proceed down the path of metaphysical confusion hand in hand with this decrepit christian philosopher. Though he was condemned by the church, he ended up making the same case the were making, only in more dishonest, more simple-minded ways. His contributions to society were primarily in mathmatics, not theology. Pineal gland....egads.

"So, if there is then a perfect God, then His actions must be the standard by which we judge perfection and morality"

Quite a leap you take there. Again, what basis do you have for this premise? Other than that cartesian summersault? The discussion of perfection and imperfection is musty, and covered in cobwebs. Not exactly how these arguments get framed in the 21st century. But saint thomas aquainas and erasmus would have nodded their head in agreement with your terminology...

Which of course you present in opposition to the supposed perfection of your supposed external originator. Which you supposed you've provided evidence for by citing descartes..."convinced, but by no means convincing" -- a professor of renaissance literature once wrote that on one of my essays...i tried to get clever with my application of derrida and marx and nietzsche in criticizing a book by la montaigne and by extension, him. He was right. I was 20 and out of my league. Reminds me of your efforts here. That sophomoric silliness may or may not have impressed folks at ho hum state or oral roberts u, but here it is just shabby theology stitched together with patches of reason and logic.

"Stink, I am going to continue arguing from the stance that God exists. If you want to fight about it, start a new thread and we can lock horns there."

I'm stooping enough here. Don't flatter yourself.

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 3:38:58 PM

^^ You got it! It was NEVER, and WILL NEVER be about "abortion." The rational mind is NEVER "for" abortion. It's ALWAYS a tragic circumstance.

This is a matter of control only. Power corrupts. Especially when you got god in your pants.

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 2:28:13 PM

^that is the crux of the bisquit.^

Direct answer: reason and logic provide my moral guidance. I reason that it is reasonable to follow the reasonings of a well-reasoned society. Ditto logic.

I reason that it isn't reasonable to follow the reasonings of an unreasonable society.
ditto illogic.

Oh, and I forgot this hum-dinger:

Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? Ask rabban about the midinites sometime...something about baby killing and child rape. Seriously, ask him. The old testament is chock full of violence. Violence and justification for violence, as you should know. In fact, your ignorance about all the killing and revenge of the OT is actually pretty telling. You barely even know about your own holy scripture, how the hell could you be an authority on someone elses? Themes of violence and retribution...stark contrast? How about an infernal flood that not only kills the entire population of humans on the earth, but all the flora and fauna as well? How do you classify that, if not as the very apogee of violence and retribution? It makes hiroshima and nagasaki look playful by comparison. But this isn't the extent of the violence and retribution found in the christian bible is it? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. There's killing of philistines, midinites, soddomites; there's fratricide, infanticide; raping, pillaging, plundering; forced slavery, cursing, swearing, shoving, tattling....not just condoned by God, but often commanded by him.

(ps. Rabban: when responding to percival about whether or not violence and retribution are actually well represented in the OT, a simple yes/no answer would suffice! I know, I know, consider the context...but you have to admit, there's plenty of blood and guts in there for those who like such things!)

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 3:34:32 PM

You know Stink, I don't mean this in a cruel way, but I'm starting to lose a lot of the respect I had for your intelligence. Yet again, you have merely spouted venom, and in no way communicated any opinion of your own.

1. Now isn't that mature. Sound suspicious to anyone else? Anyone?
2. I listed clear differences between the two. You still believe they're the same? Why don't you prove something. You are the accuser, and the burden of proof rests with you. I have defended my position. Don't know what your problem is here.
3.

You are right, this statement is ambiguous. What I meant was that I did not begin by establishing the reasons I believed what I believe about God. That discussion is for another thread.

Now on to logic and reason as absolutes: Mathematics, Logic, and Reason, are all names given to systems that describe, categorize, and organize absolute truths about nature. Facts such as: 2+2 is always 4; two contradicting statements cannot both be true; etc. I have no problem with the definitions in your post above, but the systems are ways of understanding the absolutes. Logic is not arbitrary, thus conclusions reached through logic (provided your facts are true and your logic is valid) are always true. Descartes reasoned logically that a perfect God must exist, because imperfect beings could not independently conceive of perfection. This is NOT a silly argument if you take the time to think through what it means. You can conceive of something like the boogie man by rearranging or manipulating what already exists, however it is impossible to conceive of something totally nonexistent in any form. It would be like trying to invent a whole new color not based on any that already exist. It can't be done.

Descartes as a sophomoric silliness? Where exactly did you go to school again?

The argument is sound, but I cannot make you see that, and I am wasting my time ramming my head into this brick wall over and over again. Why do you refuse to contribute anything to this discussion? Why do you continue to adopt a pugnacious tone in these exchanges?

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 3:31:34 PM

Percy: on the contrary, I have uncovered the argument. Flea above most succinctly states the true form of this argument above. In this country, arguments about abortion are always about religion. Always.

Whether or not you respect my intelligence isn't even remotely interesting to me. For personal reasons, let's say, I don't need you to approve of me.

My criticism often come covered in venom. I told you about my prejudice against covering old ground. I am similarly prejudiced against arguments that emenate from premises not in evidence. I lack the patience for engaging in arguments with those who's premises are not only unproven, but unprovable . Which is why I generally stay out of religious threads. I learned my lessons. Or have I?

You say your argument is sound. Your argument is shabby. You leap from a cartisian absurdity to a conclusion you started out with in the first place. None of your arguments hold water. None, as my evicerations above demonstrate...or demonstrate to disinterested parties.

MY TONE: is pugnacious....true. I do not relish engaging in tiresome, faith-based quarrels. Anytime someone uses as his starting point an irrational premise, the discussion never gets any better. I know what you're going to say before you bother to say it. I've heard it all before....years and years past, and from smarter folks than you and I. It is another of my prejudices that I also have barbs for bad thinkers, not just their bad thoughts. Rather than rebutt the endless bad thoughts of the bad thinker, I rebutt the bad thinker himself. I formulate a judgement. This habit I picked up in school, when deconstructionism was all the rage...highlight the bad thoughts, expose them, and then highlight the fetishes of their progenitor...

But I also dislike pretending that I respect flabby thinking, so I dispense with the civility in certain cases. Better for my constitution that I stay out of faith-based exercises in "reasoning." for me, discussions of this sort are fine to a point, but I have finite patience for it. The problem is, religious folks have a bottom-less well of superstition and horseshit they like to get all dressed up as "reason" and parade around to try convince folks that have better things to do. Well, I have better things to do than amuse you. I write ironically to amuse myself, as there is nothing new on your end. I have to try to get something out of it for myself...since you're not giving me much.

If this could have been a discussion of abortion, and not religion, I would have enjoyed seeing how the discussion progressed. But this is never about that. Is it? Re-read mr. Flea.

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 4:28:29 PM

Ok Stink.

I also think you have STUPID arguments.

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 4:21:08 PM

Then riddle me the following godboy:

"This statement is false."

@ Stinkfingers

Enough. It is perfectly clear to me now that you decided a long time ago how this discussion would go, and it is a waste of my time to continue. I have been very patient with your attacks, but your conduct throughout this thread has been childish at best. You have ignored important points time and again, eager to pounce on what you see as exploitable flaws, only to fall short of any meaningful criticism in your haste to say something witty and insulting. If you had adopted an attitude of courtesy, this discussion may have had some worth (not to you, of course - that was never possible), but your constant Strawman distortions and venomous Ad Hominem fallacies have sucked the life out of this debate. It is a shame that you have allowed your own bitterness to so completely cloud your reason. The Professor was right about one thing: we are at an impasse, and the continuation of these exchanges can do no good for either one of us.

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience."
-Alan Zimmerman

Consider me beaten.

Bizarro world.

Jeez, ya go away for a little while and an excellent thread is beaten to the ground by mindless namecalling and an incoherent spouting of quotes.

SHAME ON YOU PERSEUS AND STINKFINGERS!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody cares who has the bigger one.

Now go out behind the barn and get me a switch.

Per name calling?

Why was this on the 6th post down?
Because he knew this was never going to be a debate. We already know it's going to be about chasing tales, disconnected ramblings, imaginative interoperation of history, and repeated rephrasing of right-party-religion.

I'd much rather throw back a few cool ones with minion, smallberries, and Buford T Justice than most. Perhaps in Bend, at the Deschutes brewery, in the Fall.

For those who don't love me; Bite me.

^LOL of course we all knew it would end like this but suprisingly there was a short time when there was a decent exchange.

As to kicking back a Deshutes brewery, sounds like fun. Bend is kind-of nice in the Fall.

Maybe we can meet at K. Falls instead that's where my in-laws live.

These are some smallberries that love beer. Deschuttes, rogue, mc dingleberries, name it.

V: this was never about abortion. It was always about religion. I don't believe that it has to be though. Let's just say I wanted to get to the bottom of things, and I did it...er...per blunt force of rough-neck logic, unrefined as it is.

For clarification: I didn't do any name calling. I simply employed condescending tone (appropriate because the discussion was beneath me). Look back if you like. Christ, percy called me childish, said I was an idiot and all that....all I did was expose him for a religious dabbler in logic with sophomoric pretensions. He did the dabbling, I did the exposing. He whined and whined about being made to look silly. Yes percy, I responded to you in a rote fashion, mostly through fatigue. Oddly enough, my barbs hit their marks...because you were entirely unoriginal. I don't mean that to say anything about you personally. But verily, we've seen exactly the same arguments again and again and again, just with different authors, all using or misusing logic to cloak their religious motivations. But here's what I'm getting at:

Can't we have a discussion which doesn't involve people "getting their god on" in lieu of actually reasoning through a topic? Please? Just once? I know your faith is important to you. But please understand that your faith isn't important to me. It isn't intrinsically convincing, so arguments based on it don't have any sway. Its not personal. It is however, maddening and condescending that you would proceed on with your arguments assuming that I shared or should share your particular religious beliefs. Listen, I have some ideas I keep to myself, I woudn't suppose you to find interesting or convincing. They're my ideas, and I keep them personal. It doesn't mean they aren't valuable, but I don't suppose you'd find them better than your own. This should never be my beliefs vs yours, which is what many of you are setting up here: "abortion is wrong because God says so."

I am obviously fatigued at this behavior, which is endemic in these threads...i am tired of sham argumentation...pretensions of logic and so forth which is so often just an attempt to gussy up someone's religious beliefs as though they were universal logic, and foist them onto everyone else. Can't your faith be personal? Can't your reasoning be divested from your religious beliefs? I really think it's possible.

I know - well, I believe that good arguments can be made against abortion without invoking some god or other. On a related topic, some of you will remember that I attempted to argue against the federal law on abortion (roe v wade) stating that I found no evidence in the constitution protecting abortion and that it should be up to states to decide. I didn't get too far, but I tried...

Tell you what, you guys try to come up with a good, well reasoned, reality based argument against abortion...let's hear a real argument. Leave your gods at home, your religious beliefs at the door. If you do this, is there anything left? There should be, there really should...i am not really invested in this argument, though I am genuinely curious.

Last edited: Friday, March 10, 2006 at 10:46:55 PM

You've got a little bit of a dreamer in you Stink ;)

But don't give up all hope; reason and logic do win once in a while.

I was raised as fanatical Christian as they come. But eventually the circular logic and fuzzy answers to real questions just got to be to canned for me. Everyone spouting the same nonsense just bored me to tears. And drove me onto the path to hell that I currently enjoy.

So cheer up... Put the sarcasm down for a bit and really try to convince one of these D*** fools that everything that their barely literate pastor/priest/Elder/holy man/woman (A.K.A. Leech upon society) said is absolutely true.

And to all you fanatics out there who want to pray for me to see the light.... Go ahead there's already over a hundred doing so right now, but sadly with no apparent effect. Must not be doing it right maybe you can help.

Now that's just mean.

Stink. The thing about online is you cant tell what they are talking about.

You may get the basic thing but you never get tone and body language.

Your going to miss 50% of the things he says and so will he with you.

Does that also mean we are missing 50% of everything we read? Usually in these threads with Stink/opposition the tone is quite clear...it is written as such. Both parties have their stances...there is fundamental premise at dispute. For both sides to coexist, that option which allows both sides to "have their way" without unduly harming/hindering the other is the one that must prevail, lest we resort to AK-47s and such. I don't see any pro-CHOICE (not pro-abortion) throwing stones or demonstrating outside chruches...can we say that for pro-life?

Maybe those who are for separation for chuch and state should start demonstrating outside of temples, churches, and the like. Is it illegal to demonstrate on public property near churches? Maybe that is what is needed...

^ Na, can't really demonstrate because they believe in the Ori. That is their Constitutional right (at the moment).

That energy should go to ousting the fools in Washington that intend to muck up the balance.

@ Tally, sorry for the short threads, new job has me hoppin'. I firmly believe what I beleive. I am not slamming it on anyone. You wont find me pipe bombing planned parenting centers any time soon.

Where do you draw the line with abortion. Six months or less, three months? I really believe the only way draw the line is at conception. This when human life begins. Yeah, I have no memories of TT while in my mama's womb, but I actually don't remember the first 500 times I crapped my diaper either. Get my point?

I usually read everyones posts. If I dont reply to any that means I aint got the time. Thanks for your time. KKB