Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Psychoses of Abortion
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:26 am Post subject:

akcrono wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue or what point you're trying to make.

I think he's using this extreme case to try to paint abortion in a negative light.

I have no need to use any such case to paint abortion in a negative light; the practice itself does that well enough on its own. I merely wanted to spark discussion on the possible (probable? inevitable?) results of accepting such depravity.

And those results seem to speak for themselves: look at the first response in this thread... look at the Planned Parenthood representative.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:26 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

akcrono wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue or what point you're trying to make.

I think he's using this extreme case to try to paint abortion in a negative light.

Lol, the possible and probable results of having abortion legal. Right...

Thanks for reinforcing my stance on being pro-choice.

Seriously though, the pro-life movement would probably be more successful if it didn't across as bible thumping (you're not, at least on this thread, I know) and sanctimonious (which you are). Just focus on the human life part and you might have more success...

For example this thread. That planned parenthood person was an idiot, the doctor appears to be awful. Yes, we all know that. You're not going to convince me that being pro-choice is wrong by associating me with them. Why would anyone listen to you when you're insulting them?

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:22 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Seriously though, the pro-life movement would probably be more successful if it didn't across as bible thumping

I despise the Bible-thumpers - probably more than you do - on this issue precisely because they give the disingenuous and emotional an easy out when presented with their religious-based anti-abortion arguments.

Quote:

Thanks for reinforcing my stance on being pro-choice.

[...]

You're not going to convince me that being pro-choice is wrong by associating me with them. Why would anyone listen to you when you're insulting them?

I'm not trying to convince you, and this post of yours is an excellent illustration of why. You've taken offense at an imagined insult and used that as justification to reinforce your position. That's the hallmark of emotional reasoning, and I'm no longer naive enough to think I have any chance of persuading people who arrive at their moral conclusions in such a manner. That's one of the reasons I specified other intentions for creating this thread.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:08 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Seriously though, the pro-life movement would probably be more successful if it didn't across as bible thumping

Quote:

But not other intentions in the title. The content may be a thinly veiled attempt to redirect the focus (slightly) away from the moral discussion of abortion, but the title makes your point exceedingly clear: abortion is psychosis. You make zero distinction with the general idea of abortion (as accepted by many) and the horrifying acts depicted in your OP.

As for the debate itself, the problem hinges on when it is truly considered "a life". Those with scientific backgrounds tend to put it at the detection of brainwaves (the same measure we use to determine end of a life), while those with a more spiritual background tend to place it around the time of conception. Neither definition could be considered objectively correct, which is why (in my opinion) there should not be any legislation.

rockbilly

Joined: 19 Mar 2013

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:00 am Post subject: Abortion Is a Euphemism

Abortion is a euphemism. If forced to operate within a core vocabulary of a thousand or two thousand words--something which ha! most of us ESL'ers have dealt with, or deal with, every day--you'd just plain have to say "kill" a "baby," because you'd have no other words to work with. This insight came to me a few years ago when I was tutoring a young woman in China. If she . . . was going to have a baby . . . but . . . the doctor said . . . there's a problem . . . then she would "just kill it." Her words. And I realized then--aha! The power of a limited vocabulary! She's saying "just kill it" because those are the only words she has. Whether you think killing is nice, whether you think killing a baby is nice, or in whatever way desirable or expedient--that's something I leave up to you.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion Is a Euphemism

rockbilly wrote:

Abortion is a euphemism.

If forced to operate within a core vocabulary of a thousand or two thousand words--something which ha! most of us ESL'ers have dealt with, or deal with, every day--you'd just plain have to say "kill" a "baby," because you'd have no other words to work with.

This is half-baked. A 10-week feotus would not be a "baby." A feotus doesn't become viable until well into the second trimester, and viability is usually not assured until the beginning of the third trimester.

If the termination procedure occurs after the baby is viable, then yes, its a killing. If not, its an abortion. If you'd like a clean line, then anything before 22 weeks constitutes an abortion.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:54 pm Post subject:

akcrono wrote:

If you can't differentiate between "the psychoses of abortion" and "the morality of abortion," that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to waste my time continuously reclarifying the obvious. Address the topic I raised or move on to a related topic, but don't accuse me of deception where there is none.

Quote:

As for the debate itself, the problem hinges on when it is truly considered "a life".

I never made reference to the people who are behind the times on medical technology like ultrasounds. I did, however, specifically mention those who accept the fetus as a human life yet still find justification for killing it. It is people like this who I suspect are responsible for producing grizzly acts like those in my OP. Others are just ignorant, willful or otherwise.

Quote:

Those with scientific backgrounds tend to put it at the detection of brainwaves (the same measure we use to determine end of a life), while those with a more spiritual background tend to place it around the time of conception.

Not only is this disingenuous, but it's also inaccurate. Unless this large majority of doctors refuse to perform abortions simply because it's 'icky' and not because they find a moral objection to it.

sirius black made a similar claim before regarding the foundation of life, and my response then serves well enough now: "Science tells us particular qualities of different cells but not how to interpret those qualities." What science does do, however, is provide us with a clear continuum of development from fertilized egg to fully developed newborn and plenty of conditions in adult humans with which we can compare the fetus. Consciousness? Coma patient. Brain tissue development? This guy. Nervous system development? CIPA patient. Reproductive viability? Post-menopausal women. I challenge you to find a characteristic of a fetus to disqualify it from personhood that doesn't have a perfect counterpart in another individual we grant the right to life.

There's a reason people like Judith Jarvis Thomson were able to carve out a niche in the debate.

Kuros wrote:

You're correct that that's terrible logic, but not for the reason you give. Unless you believe it's morally permissible to wantonly "abort" those on life support.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:06 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Kuros wrote:

You're correct that that's terrible logic, but not for the reason you give. Unless you believe it's morally permissible to wantonly "abort" those on life support.

This analogy shall not stand. Life support burdens, at most, a properly compensated hospital staff in shifts, but more predominantly it burdens a machine. A foetus burdens a living, breathing mother for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

And now we've arrived at the psychosis of American 'pro-life' activists, many of whom will criminalize abortions but refuse to allow the gov't to pay for a woman's medical and labor costs throughout her pregnancy. I have no problem with pro-life activists who put up billboards and volunteer to persuade mothers to bring their pregnancies to term, but eschew regulations and political campaigns. But the ones who wish to criminalize abortions, these people simply must recognize the burden they are inflicting upon mothers, and must also be willing to pay for that burden with their tax dollar.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

This analogy shall not stand.

It shall, and I will defend it. You proposed viability as a necessary condition for life. I gave an example of an individual granted the right to life who lacks such viability. The source of the assistance required matters not in the slightest, so long as it is from outside the individual.

As for the compensation...

Quote:

And now we've arrived at the psychosis of American 'pro-life' activists, many of whom will criminalize abortions but refuse to allow the gov't to pay for a woman's medical and labor costs throughout her pregnancy.

What relevance does this have to me and my objections? I've repeatedly stated my support for a real single-payer system, and I've repeatedly condemned Republicans for their hypocrisy on many an issue. This is below you.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

As for the compensation...

Quote:

Are you even American? Its relevant to your analogy but not directed at you. That life support system you conjured is expensive, you know.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:42 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Are you even American?

"Y'all" is a regular part of my vocabulary, football is played with an oblong-shaped ball, and mayonnaise is not an appropriate condiment for french fries. That should narrow it down for ya. Smile

Quote:

Its relevant to your analogy but not directed at you.

It would be relevant for identifying hypocrisy, yes, but not the analogy itself.

Quote:

That life support system you conjured is expensive, you know.

You've lost me. I know you can't be referring to single-payer healthcare, unless I've dramatically misremembered your position on the matter.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:39 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

[But the ones who wish to criminalize abortions, these people simply must recognize the burden they are inflicting upon mothers, and must also be willing to pay for that burden with their tax dollar.

But the flip side of that coin is that in many if not most cases there would have been no burden at all had the mother been more discriminating.

Besides which once the baby is born many single mothers do avail themselves of the "tax dollar" and go on welfare. And I don't know about America but in Canada you can also get extra money for children known euphemistically as the "baby bonus". So taxpayers are paying regardless of their willingness anyway.

GF

Joined: 26 Sep 2012

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

But the ones who wish to criminalize abortions, these people simply must recognize the burden they are inflicting upon mothers, and must also be willing to pay for that burden with their tax dollar.

The "burden" we're "inflicting" on them.

There's a lot wrong with that sentence.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:40 pm Post subject:

GF wrote:

Kuros wrote:

But the ones who wish to criminalize abortions, these people simply must recognize the burden they are inflicting upon mothers, and must also be willing to pay for that burden with their tax dollar.

The "burden" we're "inflicting" on them.

There's a lot wrong with that sentence.

I said mothers, not them. Mothers.

I watched my wife suffer incredibly through her pregnancy. If she got pregnant again and wanted an abortion, I would gladly help her get one. Between the hormones, the nausea, back problems, mysterious hand and feet swelling, bladder hyperactivity, and other random freakish pain, yes, I think she's either earned her bills for pain and suffering or demonstrated fair grounds for choice.

(You may congratulate me on my newborn daughter now)

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:41 pm Post subject:

GF wrote:

Kuros wrote:

But the ones who wish to criminalize abortions, these people simply must recognize the burden they are inflicting upon mothers, and must also be willing to pay for that burden with their tax dollar.

The "burden" we're "inflicting" on them.

There's a lot wrong with that sentence.

Indeed. But, due to his past history here, I felt that was the wrong approach to take. He's not the sort to be twisted in that sense.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 2 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe