Does the "average American" agree with Michael Moore?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
If the anti-abortion groups worked as hard in programs like this, in the last twenty years I'll bet they could have cut the teenage abortion rate/unwanted pregnancies in half. But instead of the instant gratification of the protest, they would spend years on 2-3 kids, and possibly lose one. It's a tough road to take, which is why I respect anyone who does it.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What about an infant? An infant is dependent upon her mother for sustenance, therefore is the mother justified in leaving the child in a dumpster?

An infant can be nourished by any woman, not necessarily her mother. An unborn child is still a part of a particular person. See the difference?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What's so special about birth?

It's the point at which a being begins to have the experiences that will have a great effect on the creation of their personality.

[Ben Kenobi]

An unborn child is still a part of a particular person.

So a pregnant woman has four eyes?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's the point at which a being begins to have the experiences that will have a great effect on the creation of their personality.

Not bad.

However, there's a few problems with this. The newborn child can recognise her mother's heartbeat. Clearly, she experiences some things before she is born.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So a pregnant woman has four eyes?

A pregnant woman has a part of her that will eventually develop into an individual person. Good enough for you? And do you care to answer the main point?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by JohnT
Eh, you're pretty average, Sava.

Don't fill his head with silly notions, all the air will be forced out of it.

[Mr. Harley]

Elok has a very good point on popular culture, and how those truly interested in helping eliminate abortion as an alternative could better put their efforts to work. I would like to see abortion largely ended. You might find this contradictory, I am pro-choice anti-abortion, which means I am for a person's right to choose, but I truly hope it won't be abortion. However, choice to me is the primary focus, and the critical item. Ben, once the government starts to legislate choices, where does it end. You in fact make my point for me.

I mention "substance use (vs. abuse)" and when you parse me, you state "This restriction has nothing to do with the other issues you throw into the mix, with substance abuse and consented sex." Exactly, and I will let the historical and legislative history make my point for me. "Moralism" laws, including abortion, and also attacks on homosexuals, people with different life-styles, etc. don't stop at just one issue. The record of those groups is very clear, and one reason I am now pro-choice. I may dislike abortion, but I dislike your alternative, government legislated morality. I feel that smoking pot is foolish and stupid, but as long as you don't operate heavy machinery or motorized conveyances while under the influence, I will defend your right. The idea of gay sex may make me have a slight "yech" reaction, but that is not my business and that's my problem, their right to freedom is what truly affects me. Being a true libetarian means defending other people's right to do things you disagree with.

A protest is "instant gratification" because the results are immediate (you have the protest), and occur in a supportive social structure that tells you in the here-and-now you've done good. Compared to volunteer work like Big Brothers/Big Sisters, it is instant gratification and your not realizing that makes me suspicious of your credentials.

Irrelevant to the issue. I could boast of my accomplishments, but right now, they mean squat to what has actually been accomplished in either Canada or the US.

Like bloody blue blases they are irrelevant. Please, boast of your accomplishments in outreach programs for disadvantaged youth, at-risk adolescents, etc. They show a real commitment, and a realization that the problems are deep seated and that the real problem, which is teen pregnancy and irresponsible behavior, will take more than just weekends off with a bunch of signs.

On the personhood issue, I'll nail you with the same thing that hit me like a brick while a was a teenager, and did a semester (roughly five months) of volunteer work with special needs children. We had one who was just this side of a vegetable. Please give me a some behavioral point that distinguishes that person from an animal, not some vague statement about they are still a person, etc.

I did some research after that. Are you familiar with microcephaly? During the more blunt and less politically correct days, those with the condition were known as microcephalic idiots. You shine a flashlight to their skulls at birth, and it glows. The cranial cavity is full of fluid, all they have is the brain stem, the reptile brain. Without life support they quickly die.

Since they will never be aware, in fact it is impossible, do you or I have the right to tell those parents they have to go through the pregnancy, in fact they have to put the wife at risk delivering this doomed creature? Okay, now lets look at retardation. At what point do we draw the line. Like most real world cases, there is a vast grey area that is very messy. I err on the side of freedom.

Ben, beware of surrendering those freedoms, on the altar of abortion as murder. Once you surrender one, you set yourself up for the next, and then the next. If conservative Islam suddenly had the right to impose Sharia on you (including banning you from any ministries among Moslems) would you respect them? They can quote chapter and verse of their holy texts. Or would you say "That's different." Which is exactly my point.

I used to agree with those that thought Jefferson was wrong, the the "Wall" model of the separation of Church and state was incorrect. As I grow older, and realize that while my knowledge grows linearly the volume of what I don't know grows exponentially, I come to better appreciate the wisdom of some of the "dead white males." Jefferson understood the threat to freedom that people of faith who want to impose morality are. I wish another model worked, but historically the man was right. As you are arguing morality, based on sacred texts and your interpetation, and your right to impose that model on me, and I am arguing ethics and the preeminence of freedom, will we continue to be opposed. It's part of the tension that makes democracy great.

Sava didn't exactly do a threadjack. The tension of the abortion debate, and the way it's serves as a lightning rod for the social conservatives, fundamentalists, libetarians, and liberals highlights very well the issues that separate Americans, and why there are no "average" Americans. It's why many Europeans cannot comprehend US-style politics. If you want a more accurate model, look at the moslem, jewish, and hindu countries where you have a significantly involved conservative religious community attempting to pass laws on morality. That model serves much better for understanding US politics instead of a European model, though the Republic of Ireland did a pretty good job until EU membership and it's monetary benefits pretty much relaxed the Catholic Church's stranglehold on morality laws - not that it still doesn't have influence, note I said stranglehold for the nitpickers .

[Ben Kenobi]

A pregnant woman has a part of her

In the beginning of a pregnancy, the embryo has to have a defense mechanism to protect herself from her mother's antibodies attempting to expel a foreign body.

The unborn child is not a part of the mother, but through the umbilical cord shares a very close bond, as close as any two people will ever get.

This point needs to be clarified to a much greater extent than the other point in your post.

An infant can be nourished by any woman, not necessarily her mother.

True, but unborn children as early as 21 weeks can survive on a respirator. Birth therefore, has little significance.

Secondly, viability only measures our technology, rather than an intrinsic quality of the unborn child. With better technology, viability would not be an issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shawnmcc:

The record of those groups is very clear, and one reason I am now pro-choice.

What groups? How do you know I belong to such groups?

There is only one issue up here, all the others have nothing to do with this issue, and that is abortion.

Being a true libetarian means defending other people's right to do things you disagree with.

If the unborn child is a person, then she comes under the same protection as the rest of us. Therefore, it would seem that this is the main question to resolve, what is the unborn child?

A protest is "instant gratification" because the results are immediate (you have the protest), and occur in a supportive social structure that tells you in the here-and-now you've done good.

We do not see the results of our efforts. Very rarely will someone come to us and say that they changed their mind. More often, they will walk off, and we hope that some do.

The goal of the protests is not just to 'get the message out,' but to save lives. Until we know that we have changed people's minds, only then will we have succeeded.

And even then, every abortion is in sense a failure, because it means there are people we have not reached.

So tell me again, how protests provide 'instant gratification.'

They show a real commitment, and a realization that the problems are deep seated and that the real problem, which is teen pregnancy and irresponsible behavior, will take more than just weekends off with a bunch of signs.

I agree that women need help with their pregnancies, and that it is not enough just to ban abortion.

and did a semester (roughly five months) of volunteer work with special needs children. We had one who was just this side of a vegetable.

So if the vegetable is nothing more than a sack of meat, why not slit their throat and put them out of their misery? After all, that's what abortion would do to them before they are born.

Since they will never be aware, in fact it is impossible, do you or I have the right to tell those parents they have to go through the pregnancy, in fact they have to put the wife at risk delivering this doomed creature?

We are all doomed creatures, from the moment of our conception. Why shorten the lives of others?

I err on the side of freedom.

Like a slaveowner errs on the side of property rights, Such freedom costs lives.

If conservative Islam suddenly had the right to impose Sharia on you (including banning you from any ministries among Moslems) would you respect them? They can quote chapter and verse of their holy texts. Or would you say "That's different." Which is exactly my point.

We do not have the right to strip others of their rights, one man's rights ends where another man's begin. Just as they would be wrong to bar me from practicing my beliefs, so are we wrong to kill innocent children.

As you are arguing morality, based on sacred texts and your interpetation,

Where in this thread have I quoted scripture? One need not be religious to know that it is wrong to kill children.

I am arguing ethics and the preeminence of freedom,

And so you impose your values on me.

[Mr. Harley]

No I don't impose my values on you. YOU are free not to practice abortion. If the anti-abortion movement has it's choice, and my wife and I discover our next child is hideously deformed, then we are the individuals who will not have a choice. A red herring, and also the argument of a fanatic - someone is imposing their values on you by refusing to subscribe to your beliefs.

By the way, you are a member of the pro-life faction, or anti-abortion, self-identified by your actions (you engage in the protests) and your rhetoric. I DID NOT state you were in fact a member of those groups, please do not quote out of context.

Exactly, and I will let the historical and legislative history make my point for me. "Moralism" laws, including abortion, and also attacks on homosexuals, people with different life-styles, etc. don't stop at just one issue. The record of those groups is very clear, and one reason I am now pro-choice.

[/URL]

Those groups include the Catholic Church, moral majority, Southern Baptist Convention, certain other Baptist conventions, some Methodist groups, some Orthodox Jewish groups, conservative to moderate Islam, and that is just off the top of my head. I know you aren't a member of the last two considering your posts in the past, or have you converted in the last month? Therefor you are drawing a false conclusion and assuming guilt by association.

By the way, I've noticed a reference to Mennonites on one of your previsou posts. However, the group I am referencing, and I had thought I had made that clear, is the group of ANY WHO WISH TO IMPOSE THEIR MORALITY ON ME VIA LEGISLATION. There, in caps. Are you a member? You are by your own frank admission, because you would use legislation to coerce on me your own sense of morality.

OK, Ben, Japher just had a horrible post (I read it after my previous post - you posted on it also). Are you willing to pay the expenses, and sit with that child born inside out, waiting for it to die in agony? If not, then butt out of other people's private lives. You still don't mention your ministries. Moral cowardice. They are germane. Send me the adoption papers you have on a special needs child. Severe autism, micro- or anacephaly (by the way my description in the prior post was anacephaly, microcephaly is almost as bad, I transposed which was which), etc. Ones not caused by the birth mother's behavior, but by pure rotten genetic luck. Otherwise, like most (though I have met a very few who I do respect and HAVE those credentials) get off your moralizing high horse, and live your moral life while I attempt to live my ethical one.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Their primary goal has become providing abortions. If they are so opposed to the notion of abortion, why do they provide them at all?

You can be opposed to something and still recognize someone's right to choose for themselves.

[Mr. Harley]

DaShi, thank you. I should have made it a simple post like that, it's just Ben got under my skin.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Caligastia


That's because you know little about What Bush has done other than the war on terrorism, which you disagree with.

Well aside from deciding that preemptive war was ok the homeland security thing is hugely totalitarian. He also gave massive tax cuts and hugely increased military spending.

Whatever else he does those things make him scarily right wing.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MikeH


Well aside from deciding that preemptive war was ok

Pre-emptive? As if Iraq had not been currently doing anything wrong.

the homeland security thing is hugely totalitarian.

Really?

He also gave massive tax cuts and hugely increased military spending.

Whatever else he does those things make him scarily right wing.

Have you not heard of the way the left usually runs things? Increase spending first, increase taxes later - Bush is following this path, hardly a right-wing one.

And why is right wing scary for you? What you don't understand?