Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-24-16, 10:27 AM   #76
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Going to respond to a comment in Post #73 above. I was going to quote part of the comment, but the most curious thing happened (first time in 14 years here). When I went to quote the comment, the field remained blank. I tested that with other antagonistic posters, and everything worked normally.

Maybe a mod can explain that anomaly. I've always known that the "ignore" function can be used to avoid seeing other member responses, but I'm unaware of any function that would prevent a member from responding to the posts of others. Just a glitch?


*********************************************************

Anyway, I've copied & pasted the most relevant sentence here:

The key here is that when somebody says their personal views on subjects like abortion and same sex marriage should not be forced onto others, because that would be an immoral thing to do, they actually mean it.

Now, what that poster has either accidentally or intentionally ignored is that the same poster was the one who mentioned people being "personally opposed" to abortion without identifying what that term means. And, when asked to explain, that poster and others (excepting Pharoh, who took a shot at it) also avoided the subject.

The crux of the matter is WHY they are "personally opposed"...i.e., exactly WHAT ARE their "personal views?"

Someone could give a whole host of reasons for being "personally opposed" that would range from very trivial or whimsical reasons to much more serious objections.

If someone says, "I am personally opposed to abortion because it is the practice of ending an innocent human life"...and then says it is immoral to impose that view upon others...exactly under what circumstances WOULD it be "moral" to impose views upon others, if not to prevent the taking of human innocent life? Except for the most extreme libertarian/pacifist/whatever who maintains that it is NEVER right to "impose" views upon others (which would effectively end ALL SOCIETAL RULES, from family units to governments), then that statement is the height of absurdity.

In effect, it would be saying, "I think abortion is the killing of a child...and I would never kill my own child...but I can't impose that view upon others and prevent them from killing their own children."

Try explaining that to anyone outside of an asylum for the criminally insane and see how much agreement you get.

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-24-16 at 11:05 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 10:35 AM   #77
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I, for one, do not answer such a question because I'm not personally opposed to abortion. As long as it is not after the 24th week.
Okay, "he-Man" ( friendly joke), here's a serious question about an apparent contradiction (which I've highlighted in the quote above):

You say that you are not "personally opposed" to abortion, yet you add a qualifier which suggests that you do have a personal opposition to abortion under some circumstances.

And surely you acknowledge that not all share your opposition; therefore, you ARE imposing your personal views upon those people if you insist upon legislation reflecting your views.

And, if you are not willing to impose your views, just how strong are your convictions? Do you just think that abortion is wrong under some circumstances, or do you believe beyond a doubt that it is wrong under those circumstances...and that your view is supported by science and reason?

And do you take a similar approach toward other issues; i.e., if you personally opposed the selective service system because you believe it to be wrong for everyone, you still would not impose that view upon others?

Do you refuse to vote since government imposes rules upon others? And it is wrong to ever impose views? That's all government does...impose someone's views. If all were in agreement on every (any) issue, then we wouldn't need courts, legislators, etc.

One can pick any public policy/social issue and apply the same principle: You may believe that society has a right to require compulsory school attendance, but are you willing to allow others to decide otherwise...because it would be wrong to impose your ideas upon others?

If you argue that it's for the good of the children despite the wishes of the parents, please recognize that you've just made an argument for protecting children from being aborted.

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-24-16 at 11:08 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 10:44 AM   #78
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread: Now with more pics!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wearetheborg View Post
A 1 week old fetus is a mass of cells that could grow into a human being.

Similarly, a woman's egg could grow into a human being if given sperm.
So at what point does the transformation from potential human to actual human being take place?

You say "similarly." But WILL a woman's egg without being fertilized grow into a human being? If you can produce evidence of that ever happening, you can collect a cool million (or more, if they've raised the amount) for a Nobel Prize.

Under normal circumstances, the fertilized egg WILL (not "could") "grow into a human being" (to use your words). Not "could"...WILL. Abortions aren't committed because there's a slight possibility that a live birth might occur...they are committed due to the anticipation that such an event WILL take place.

Conversely, no one is going to have abortions every month out of fear that their unfertilized eggs "might" result in a baby.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 10:55 AM   #79
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Oh, so now the "he route" is wrong or cowardly, even if one is clearly making a joke.
Aw, now, don't be so sensitive, Lib. You used the words above, not me.

I suggested that those who indulge in the curious practice of treating the forum as a private club in which interlopers should be whispered about or mocked in "open" exchanges to each other suggests a lack of actual arguments. It does also suggest a rather "chummy" and "snooty" atmosphere...which is also curious since it tends to come from the "inclusive" corners. But it's the internet, so why not?

And I do appreciate the good-natured ("Apostle to DVDTalk") when they're meant in jest. I wasn't suggesting that I take offense, pride, or credit for such. I lumped you in with the others because of the "he" part, not the jape.

I don't think that those who continually post what others "must" be thinking (or ARE thinking) or "feel" (or "do"), etc. are contributing anything useful to the dialogue. Even when one totally rejects what the other person is saying...and antagonists don't hesitate to labe each others' posts as "stupid," "silly," "ridiculous," "BS", etc...at least one can address the ACTUAL posts (which is why the "quote" function exists) rather than creating straw men and then spending their time tearing them down.

It's far easier to attack what someone DIDN'T say than what they DID. Lazier and dishonest, sure, but why not take the easy approach?

(Update to mods: the quote glitch appears to now be fixed.)

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-24-16 at 11:04 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 11:34 AM   #80
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,580
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Okay, "he-Man" ( friendly joke), here's a serious question about an apparent contradiction (which I've highlighted in the quote above):

You say that you are not "personally opposed" to abortion, yet you add a qualifier which suggests that you do have a personal opposition to abortion under some circumstances.
I am opposed to abortion after the 24th week because I think science supports the position that, upon brain birth, the fetus becomes "human." There is a clear distinction between the way the brain operates before and after. It is after that brain patterns/waves begin to be like they will remain for the rest of one's life.

I have been making this argument for my entire time here at DVD Talk, about 15Ĺ years. So for the umpteenth time I'm posting a link to this article:

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11jj.html

Quote:
And surely you acknowledge that not all share your opposition; therefore, you ARE imposing your personal views upon those people if you insist upon legislation reflecting your views.
Yes, I would like to see a law opposing abortions after 24 weeks, unless the life or health of the mother is seriously threatened - and of course there are going to be difficult questions and gray areas - that's life! And yes, it could be abused or cheated, just as anything can. But in the rare cases where the life of the mother and of the post-brain birth fetus actually threaten each other, the living woman's takes precedence, if she so chooses.

In Wisconsin they are trying to ban abortions after 20 weeks. As I said I think it should be 24 but could I live with this? Or with 28? Probably, while supporting that it should be changed. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, or the better. And any of these would be better than what we have or a ban.

Quote:
And, if you are not willing to impose your views, just how strong are your convictions? Do you just think that abortion is wrong under some circumstances, or do you believe beyond a doubt that it is wrong under those circumstances...and that your view is supported by science and reason?
I do believe my view is supported by science and reason. And yes, it is beyond my doubt that abortion is wrong under the instances I have described. I have held this view firmly for 35 years now and I am unlikely to change.

Quote:
And do you take a similar approach toward other issues; i.e., if you personally opposed the selective service system because you think it is wrong, you still would not impose that view upon others?

One can pick any public policy/social issue and apply the same principle: You may believe that society has a right to require compulsory school attendance, but are you willing to allow others to decide otherwise...because it would be wrong to impose your ideas upon others?
Being a libertarian I think compulsory military service is wrong. How would I impose my view on others? Not let them join the military? That would be wrong too. Or do you mean I would impose my view on those who think they have a right to force other people to serve? OK, yes I would.

As far as compulsory school attendance I oppose that. I certainly support that parents can home school. Would I support parents who want to keep their children from having an education? No, I think that would be a form of child abuse.

Quote:
If you argue that it's for the good of the children despite the wishes of the parents, please recognize that you've just made an argument for protecting children from being aborted.
Yes, I have. But for "children," not for pre-human fetuses. They are not "humans" or "children" until the 24th week.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We donít know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 12:21 PM   #81
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,081
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I, for one, do not answer such a question because I'm not personally opposed to abortion. As long as it is not after the 24th week.

I also do not engage in many of the standard "pro-choice" "arguments" such as "why don't 'pro-life' people care about those who have been born?" (because they do) or why don't they adopt every parentless kid (because that's a silly question) or much of the other peripheral nonsense.


Oh, so now the "he route" is wrong or cowardly, even if one is clearly making a joke.


It doesn't matter how much you say you have science on your side because you don't, at least not any more than the pro-abortion rights side. I find it much more persuasive that science shows us that a life begins at conception but a human life begins at brain birth (after the 24th week, at the earliest). I know you are persuaded differently but I think your interpretation of the science is wrong just as you think mine is wrong. I, at least, can see that the other side's interpretation is not totally worthless.

And both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded propaganda terms which attempt to imply the other side is anti-choice and anti-life respectively. Neither is correct or fair and I will not use them. I use "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights."


Since the science was invoked (and any time science is used to inform an opinion, I see that as a good thing)....I wonder what the majority of scientists think about this topic? My guess is that creek would suddenly not like the science so much...
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-16, 09:29 PM   #82
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 31,095
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I am opposed to abortion after the 24th week because I think science supports the position that, upon brain birth, the fetus becomes "human." There is a clear distinction between the way the brain operates before and after. It is after that brain patterns/waves begin to be like they will remain for the rest of one's life.

I have been making this argument for my entire time here at DVD Talk, about 15Ĺ years. So for the umpteenth time I'm posting a link to this article:

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11jj.html



Yes, I would like to see a law opposing abortions after 24 weeks, unless the life or health of the mother is seriously threatened - and of course there are going to be difficult questions and gray areas - that's life! And yes, it could be abused or cheated, just as anything can. But in the rare cases where the life of the mother and of the post-brain birth fetus actually threaten each other, the living woman's takes precedence, if she so chooses.

In Wisconsin they are trying to ban abortions after 20 weeks. As I said I think it should be 24 but could I live with this? Or with 28? Probably, while supporting that it should be changed. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, or the better. And any of these would be better than what we have or a ban.


I do believe my view is supported by science and reason. And yes, it is beyond my doubt that abortion is wrong under the instances I have described. I have held this view firmly for 35 years now and I am unlikely to change.

This is the view I have come around to, because it is supported by the evidence.
__________________
"...Bando...you are perfect and awesome." - 4KRG
"Bando 4 Prez" - DVD Polizei
"[Bando is] nowhere near as big a weasel as Ted Cruz" - dork
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 05:14 AM   #83
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
William Fuld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,445
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
And, William, congrats for joining the ranks of those who attempt to speak for others, but I have posted many times over the 13 years I've been a member here that the solution is changed hearts and removing the blinders from the minds of those whose consciences have been (willingly) made subordinate to either personal convenience or fear of the opinions of other humans.

Because only coming to one's senses or responding to compassion, common sense (AKA "reason"), and scientific evidence will result in adopting public policies through legislation that will truly protect the innocent...as supposedly guaranteed in our own Constitution.
I'm not attempting to speak for you, but your approach to ending a holocaust seems awfully relaxed and patient.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 08:24 AM   #84
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Fuld View Post
I'm not attempting to speak for you, but your approach to ending a holocaust seems awfully relaxed and patient.
That view is certainly in opposition to many posters here who feel that fellow forum members who post pro-life/anti-abortion arguments are dangerous fanatics trying to impose their beliefs upon others.

I won't attempt to speak for you, so exactly what are you suggesting should be the approach taken? If I may speculate, it seems that you are projecting a Catch-22 situation in which one who absolutely believes that abortion is taking an innocent human life must take commit violence to stop the practice or be labeled a hypocrite. I would point you toward the many, many posters such as ones above who would probably identify themselves as being "pro-choice" yet favor limits on abortion based upon developmental stage...so let's include everyone who opposes abortion at any stage for any reason). Of course, on the rare occasions in which someone does take action, even if the consensus is that the individual is mentally deranged, that action is denounced and called fanatical. Surely you are not suggesting that extreme, violent steps are necessary to "prove" one's "bonafides." Otherwise, one would have to call into question concerns of those who do not advocate violence to solve every social problem which they strongly denounce in the most emphatic terms...both here & around the world.

So exactly what are you saying?

Simply talking passionately about the issue here arouses extreme wrath and, in the case of one poster, self-described increased hatred toward underlying movements to stop abortion.

When one has written letters to politicians, physically & financially assisted mothers who chose adoption over abortion, has helped to provide (or actually conducted) pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and counseling for crisis pregnancies, has financially assisted adoptive parents, has prayed across the street from clinics, has stood on highways holding protest signs, has prayed for and with mothers in crisis, has gone to Washington, D.C. for pro-life marches, has called national shows such as C-Span (repeatedly) to offer pro-life arguments, etc...I'm not sure what more can be legally done to demonstrate a more urgent (as opposed to "relaxed and patient") concern.

You know that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s approach to non-violent resistance was criticized by many...yet, in retrospect, that approach is honored & respected by most today.

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 08:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 08:31 AM   #85
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post


Since the science was invoked (and any time science is used to inform an opinion, I see that as a good thing)....I wonder what the majority of scientists think about this topic? My guess is that creek would suddenly not like the science so much...
And what is your point? That what a "scientist" thinks (your word) in offering an opinion regarding when human life magically becomes a "human being" is the same as established fact???? And you are so confident that "scientists" (apart from all others) would never allow their own personal biases to color their conclusions?

In that case, you ought to be able to clearly and succinctly explain how "science" would show that the fertilized human eggs, apart from natural or human intervention, are not the earliest stages of human life or belong to some other species. Because thousands of years of observation have proven otherwise.

I find it incredibly ironic that in an age in which technology can show the actual moment of conception which can be viewed by the naked human eye, the very people who rail against "superstition" and who tout the "I only believe what I can experience with my senses" continually deny the clear evidence provided by the very "science" they rely upon so heavily for their basic beliefs. It is bizarre to think that such people reject the scientific evidence in front of them.

I'll point you to an old adage which you may have heard growing up: "If everyone else jumps off a cliff, would you?" I hope you didn't answer, "I would if they were scientists."

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 08:49 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 08:45 AM   #86
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Bando & Lib [Edit for you guys: please see note at bottom of post] (and others who have said that they oppose abortion under certain circumstances)...here is the question that often gets skirted:

What are the moral implications of your objections? If you firmly believe that abortion is wrong (or immoral) under certain circumstances, what do you believe actually happens when abortions are performed undrer those circumstances?

Is a human life being ended? Does that human life have a right to life (i.e., to be protected from having his/her life ended)? Do protections from "termination" exist within the womb?

In other words, how specific is your opposition? Is the ___ being "terminated" a "product of conception," a "potential human being," an "unborn child," or an "actual human being" at some stage in the womb?

And does a female have absolute autonomy over the life of the ____ so long as the ___ still resides within her womb? So that, even if you consider it to be "wrong" at some stage to end the life of the ____, you still would not legally prevent the mother from ending ___ life?

Please be specific with answers. There is often a lot of vague talk from all quarters as to personal views, but often the legal & moral ramifications go unmentioned.

One other question...if one believes that abortion is wrong at some stage yet would not impose those beliefs upon a pregnant woman, is this the unique situation to which this principle is applied? Are there other situations in which you feel that an action taken by an individual is morally wrong and has fatal consequences yet would not advocate preventing such actions?

**************************************************************************************************** **************

Bando & Lib: I realized that the post above seemed as though it is ignoring what Lib stated clearly and with which Bando agreed. Without getting into specific details about the implications of early stages of development & whether those early stages which (unopposed by nature or human intervention) will continue with the results that lead to your belief in when the procedure should be banned), am I understanding you correctly in that you are "pro-choice" up until a certain point and thereafter become "pro-life" (while the target of abortions is still in the womb)?

And does that put you in opposition with those vocal opponents here who insist that "it's my body/my choice" regardless of stages? If so, I certainly haven't seen many of them posting vocal opposition to your stance...which, if I'm understanding you correctly, would "impose your views" on abortion upon mothers (or, as those who reject the idea that a human life is being taken, "pregnant females").

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 08:59 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 09:31 AM   #87
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 31,095
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

This is a really tough issue, and many people who are much smarter than I am have difficulty with it. That being said, let me try to give my response to creek's question.

I believe that a fetus prior to brain birth is not yet a person, in the same sense that a brain dead body is no longer a person (which is why we are allowed to remove such a body/person from life support).

After brain birth, the fetus is a person. The fact that this new person is physically inside of, and dependent on, the mother's body makes the status of the fetus very complicated. I don't think that a fetus after brain birth should be aborted for anything other than to save the life of the mother. I would not object to laws prohibiting abortion after 24 weeks from conception (aside from the exception already noted). I think that gives the mother plenty of time to decide what she wants to do, prior to brain birth.
__________________
"...Bando...you are perfect and awesome." - 4KRG
"Bando 4 Prez" - DVD Polizei
"[Bando is] nowhere near as big a weasel as Ted Cruz" - dork

Last edited by Bandoman; 01-25-16 at 09:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 09:54 AM   #88
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Thanks, Bando.

My response would be to say that a major difference exists: In the case of a patient declared "brain dead," the implication if not definite statement is that there is no possibility of reversing the process and "reviving" the brain.

In the case of the fetus, the process is very much alive (otherwise, abortion would be unnecessary except to remove the corpse...which is often done when the baby dies in the womb). You don't need to "abort" someone who is already dead.

In other words, I see a huge difference in interfering with a very-much alive human being which is still developing characteristics (just as we continue to develop characteristics after birth and continuing throughout our lives) and someone whose brain is beyond all hope of recovery.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 09:56 AM   #89
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,580
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Bando & Lib (and others who have said that they oppose abortion under certain circumstances)...here is the question that often gets skirted:

What are the moral implications of your objections? If you firmly believe that abortion is wrong (or immoral) under certain circumstances, what do you believe actually happens when abortions are performed undrer those circumstances?

Is a human life being ended? Does that human life have a right to life (i.e., to be protected from having his/her life ended)? Do protections from "termination" exist within the womb?
If an abortion is performed after the 24th week, a human life is ended. Yes, that human has a right to life and protection against that life being ended. I don't understand the third question.

Quote:
In other words, how specific is your opposition? Is the ___ being "terminated" a "product of conception," a "potential human being," an "unborn child," or an "actual human being" at some stage in the womb?
The fetus is a living thing without human rights until the 24th week. I really don't care what you call it except it is not a human being or person at that time. After that it is a human being or a person.

Quote:
And does a female have absolute autonomy over the life of the ____ so long as the ___ still resides within her womb? So that, even if you consider it to be "wrong" at some stage to end the life of the ____, you still would not legally prevent the mother from ending ___ life?
No, the "female" does not have absolute autonomy after the 24th week. Yes, I would support a law preventing the woman from procuring an abortion at that time and preventing the doctor (or backstreet butcher or whatever) from performing an abortion. Only when there actually is a conflict because the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the life of the woman or seriously threaten her health (such as causing a serious disease or condition) would I allow the abortion.

Obviously, that would require some rules and guidelines. Not being a medical doctor, I would leave such rules and guidelines to those with the expertise. But if everyone knows the rules, there is plenty of time for the woman to make a decision before the 24th week. Even now, very few abortions are performed that late.

Is this a perfect system? No, there's no such thing.

Quote:
Please be specific with answers. There is often a lot of vague talk from all quarters as to personal views, but often the legal & moral ramifications go unmentioned.

One other question...if one believes that abortion is wrong at some stage yet would not impose those beliefs upon a pregnant woman, is this the unique situation to which this principle is applied? Are there other situations in which you feel that an action taken by an individual is morally wrong and has fatal consequences yet would not advocate preventing such actions?
Since I would impose this belief on people (just as I would impose my beliefs regarding any action which would violate people's rights, such a rape, murder or theft), the question is moot for me.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We donít know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:03 AM   #90
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,580
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

I answered before seeing your edit and it took awhile, including time to talk to my wife this morning before she goes off to the warm water pool. So...

Quote:
Bando & Lib: I realized that the post above seemed as though it is ignoring what Lib stated clearly and with which Bando agreed. Without getting into specific details about the implications of early stages of development & whether those early stages which (unopposed by nature or human intervention) will continue with the results that lead to your belief in when the procedure should be banned), am I understanding you correctly in that you are "pro-choice" up until a certain point and thereafter become "pro-life" (while the target of abortions is still in the womb)?
The only thing I would "correct" is that, as I said before I will not use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," even for communication purposes because so many people use those terms. But yes, I agree with that.

Quote:
And does that put you in opposition with those vocal opponents here who insist that "it's my body/my choice" regardless of stages? If so, I certainly haven't seen many of them posting vocal opposition to your stance...which, if I'm understanding you correctly, would "impose your views" on abortion upon mothers (or, as those who reject the idea that a human life is being taken, "pregnant females").
Yes. I guess I am in opposition to those "vocal opponents." That's OK, I usually am in opposition to just about everyone.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We donít know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:07 AM   #91
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Thank you, Lib.

Edit: Sorry that I didn't edit quickly enough. It was nice of you not to blast me for ignoring your earlier post in which you answered most of my questions already (the confusing question was meant for those who personally believe that the fetus has a right to live at some stage yet still grant autonomy as long as the fetus is still within the womb...and the question was probably a bit redundant, but I was trying to think of all possible responses).

But your answers were most helpful, along with Bando's, so I'm glad you got a chance to post the details you did. And "correction" to your stance noted.

Thanks again to both you & Bando.

(Although I can't imagine how it must feel to be in opposition to almost everyone! )

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 10:13 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:08 AM   #92
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,580
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Thanks, Bando.

My response would be to say that a major difference exists: In the case of a patient declared "brain dead," the implication if not definite statement is that there is no possibility of reversing the process and "reviving" the brain.

In the case of the fetus, the process is very much alive (otherwise, abortion would be unnecessary except to remove the corpse...which is often done when the baby dies in the womb). You don't need to "abort" someone who is already dead.

In other words, I see a huge difference in interfering with a very-much alive human being which is still developing characteristics (just as we continue to develop characteristics after birth and continuing throughout our lives) and someone whose brain is beyond all hope of recovery.
I believe we have covered this in the past. Yes, I agree they are different in those ways. But both the pre-brain birth fetus and the brain dead person are still not human beings, or people.

The situations and processes are not identical but both are justified because of that.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We donít know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:09 AM   #93
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 31,095
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Thanks, Bando.

My response would be to say that a major difference exists: In the case of a patient declared "brain dead," the implication if not definite statement is that there is no possibility of reversing the process and "reviving" the brain.

In the case of the fetus, the process is very much alive (otherwise, abortion would be unnecessary except to remove the corpse...which is often done when the baby dies in the womb). You don't need to "abort" someone who is already dead.

In other words, I see a huge difference in interfering with a very-much alive human being which is still developing characteristics (just as we continue to develop characteristics after birth and continuing throughout our lives) and someone whose brain is beyond all hope of recovery.
I do understand the difference, but a fetus that could become a person, but is not yet a person, doesn't have rights IMO.


Edit: What movielib said.
__________________
"...Bando...you are perfect and awesome." - 4KRG
"Bando 4 Prez" - DVD Polizei
"[Bando is] nowhere near as big a weasel as Ted Cruz" - dork

Last edited by Bandoman; 01-25-16 at 10:30 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:22 AM   #94
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 9,011
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I believe we have covered this in the past.
Indeed. And it's not like the thread is on the second or third page. In fact I was surprised when a new thread was started rather than just sticking all this at the end of this one:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-po...l#post12698841

Would have made a lot more sense since the same questions and answers are all there for a refresh for anybody that doesn't feel like repeating it all. Including me.

Last edited by hdnmickey; 01-25-16 at 10:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 10:49 AM   #95
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 16,578
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post
Indeed. And it's not like the thread is on the second or third page. In fact I was surprised when a new thread was started rather than just sticking all this to the end of this one:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-po...l#post12698841

Would have made a lot more sense since the same questions and answers are all there for a refresh for anybody that doesn't feel like repeating it all. Including me.
Hey this time it's all going to be resolved and everyone's going to agree with creekdipper.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 11:39 AM   #96
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by cungar View Post
Hey this time it's all going to be resolved and everyone's going to agree with creekdipper.
You act as though only one person is opposed to abortion. Do you think everyone else here agrees with your position on anything? That hasn't stopped you...or anyone else...from posting their opinions.

Why, for instance, someone named cungar continued posting comments about abortion in the "Election" thread...even after a moderator moved the discussion here.

It might be a good place to remind people how this thread got started. In the politics forum, a person was lambasting endorsements of candidates from "mentally unhinged" people. I responded with an example of another candidate (more favored by the poster) who also received endorsements from mentally unhinged persons. The word "abortion" was never mentioned.

That statement was challenged & an answer was provided. And then the defenders of abortion were off and running, because the discussion changed from Planned Parenthood to disparaging opponents of abortion (with comments coming from the likes of the poster above who implies that all has been said about the topic yet posted one of the first comments in this thread despite his comment above). A moderator chose to move the discussion here...and evidently not everyone feels that the topic has been exhausted (certainly not the DNC, who continue to spew their "War on Women" rhetoric).

Now, cungar, could you please explain why you single out one poster's comments when many here have demonstrated that they have a wide range of opinions on whether and when abortion should be regulated?

If you don't think the topic is worth discussing, then perhaps you can explain why discussing Tina Fey's portrayal of a washed-up politician is more important...since there were quite a few posts devoted to that issue of "national importance."

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 11:47 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 11:43 AM   #97
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post

Would have made a lot more sense since the same questions and answers are all there for a refresh for anybody that doesn't feel like repeating it all. Including me.
And yet you have felt it necessary to make repeated posts throughout this thread from Page One until this one on the topic. Evidently you feel that there is something left to say.

And could you point to a single post that you have made here or elsewhere saying whether you would impose limits upon abortion and why this would not amount to "imposing your views" upon others?

You complained earlier that you didn't have time to respond. Seems that you have found the time now, so please do the courtesy of responding as Bando and movielib did.

Many people...including those who don't post...read these threads. Here's your chance to be heard on the topic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 11:52 AM   #98
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Speaking of the impetus for this discussion, here is a link re: a recent interview (Nov. 2015) with Cecile Richards (conducted by Katie Couric):

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/pl...141758930.html

In the article, Richards states that she had an abortion purely for "birth control" reasons:

“It was a decision my husband and I made. It was a personal decision. And we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life. And we decided that was as big as our family needed to be,” says Richards. “It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that. But I can’t imagine a woman being in that circumstance — with an unintended pregnancy and not being able to make her own decision about that pregnancy.”


This is the truth of the matter despite all of the talk about abortions due to "endangerment of health," "inability to care for a child," etc. The vast majority of abortions are performed merely as "back-up birth control"...even for women of means such as Richards. They are usually done as measures of convenience for the mother and not for any other reason.

This is what Planned Parenthood stands for. For all of you "extremists" who DO feel that at some point the "fetus" becomes a "human being" with rights that should be protected even while still in the womb, YOU are regarded by Planned Parenthood as being the "enemy of women"...that is, if you would support legislation that would place legal limitations upon abortions.

Last edited by creekdipper; 01-25-16 at 11:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 11:53 AM   #99
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 9,011
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
You complained earlier that you didn't have time to respond.
I didn't complain. I stated a fact. Seems a few others don't mind giving the same answer multiple times. That's their call.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-16, 12:02 PM   #100
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,470
Re: 2016 One and Only Abortion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post
I didn't complain. I stated a fact. Seems a few others don't mind giving the same answer multiple times. That's their call.
And you continue to say that you have given an answer yet refuse to cite it. Surely that would take less time and be easier than continuing your refusal to back up your claim.

Taking the Fifth Amendment is an American right, but it's viewed skeptically by many people. Some even take it as the implication of guilt.

Same for "non-answers." Any discussion can be shut down by saying, "I've already answered that."

There's a current front-runner for a major political party who employs that tactic quite often.

Here's a simple question for you: Do you support imposing legal limits upon abortion at certain stages of pregnancy?

Surely it's not going to take too much of your time and be too bothersome to answer with a simple "Yes" or "No."
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0