Abortion!

[Ben Kenobi]

You blather about respect, but so clearly have none for the woman. And you don't even see it. It's kinda sad, Ben.

What disrespect? Saying that sex ought to have some reverence associated with it? Saying that a husband has a duty to his wife to give himself to her unreservedly?

[Gibsie]

About the only thing I can take in from those quotes, especially the stuff in bold, is that there should be no talking dirty going on.

[Stuie]

I always picture "A Handmaiden's Tale" when I think about Ben eventually having sex.

[Stuie]

And furthermore....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/sc_nm/life_italy_mummy_dc

That's what infertility will do to you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ever try fasting UR?

It doesn't matter if I have tried it or not. If you refrain from eating, it means you don't take that action. Maybe it takes some willpower to continue after awhile, but that's irrelevant.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What disrespect? Saying that sex ought to have some reverence associated with it? Saying that a husband has a duty to his wife to give himself to her unreservedly?

See, giving yourself unreservedly to someone is no way to express respect. If you really respect someone you should pleasure yourself with them as you desire, then leave them with the consequences. Now that's respect.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ming
I guess it's easy to ignore the rights of women when you are a male...

I know, we could start a movement! We'll free the sisterhood from phallo-centric architecture. From now on, all large office buildings shall be shaped like boobies!!

Wimmin of the earth! Unite!!

:yawn:

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ming
Reality is, they allow one form of birth control and not others.

Reality is, it's a complex teaching. You can characterise it by saying: 'Latex, bad. Rhythm, good.' But it's not quite so black n white.

Using that argument, it would then be ok to use other forms as well, as long as you had an intent in the future to have children.

Arguably, yes. That would be a consideration.

I have never heard a Catholic priest claim in church/school/private discussion that you can't use the rhythm method if you never plan to have children.

Then you haven't read Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility.

They have said that if you want to avoid having children, that the rhythm method is the only form allowed by the church.
Now how silly is that.

The argument is based on the assumption of faith in the Church. Of course it's silly.

Trying to critique a theological opinion on the basis of a different theology is even more silly.

... plus I minored in it in college...

Oh dear. Famous last words.

how much formal education in religion do you have?

Depends. How do you define 'formal?'

From reading your weak arguments,

Awww, now you've hurt my feelings.

I'm not arguing, just clarifying a point which most people might not be aware of. But, hey, if you think Wojtyla's arguments are weak,.. Good luck, my son. Good luck.

you should be the one that's used to tasting leather...

Nope. I mostly go bare-foot.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Jaguar
You can make up whatever definition you want for "human" and you can make up whatever "rights" you personally think exist for all humans.

You can frame the entire argument in two terms that you can embellish to fit your own agenda. Which is why the "debate" is pointless.

I disagree. The debate may be fought over definitions, but that's not what it's about. This debate is about compassion.

More precisely, it's a finite-compassion dilemma.

Like teams of doctors in triage, we each have our opinions and our priorities. What makes the debate so divisive and so heated is the fact that we all know, no matter what action we take there will still be suffering and death on both sides.

Pro-lifers place first priority on caring for the unborn child. Women come second - serious but not critical. Anyone else comes in after that. The pro-choice position advocates treating the women first. The cluster of cells is judged to be beyond help, or at least can't be helped without taking care of the woman first. Anyone else, boyfriends, siblings, etc can line up and take a bleedin' number.

Pro-lifers are not deliberately insensitive to the suffering of victims of abuse. Pro-choice advocates eat babies for breakfast a lot less than most people might think.

Now, what happens if we set aside the whole question of definitions? When does Fred become human? We can argue about it 'til kingdom come, but let's ignore that for now.
Even if Fred is no more than a cluster of cells, there is no reason why that should limit our ability to extend compassion towards it. Nor should it mean we are unable to treat it with some level of respect and dignity.

At a certain point, this cluster of cells is capable of feeling pain. Pro-choice advocates would still, in the main, be happy to minimise any pain which might be caused. Hell, given the technology, I'm sure most Pro-choice advocates would be perfectly happy to cherish and protect every zygote, to lovingly place it in a petri dish and Fedex it straight to Rome,.. collect!

I would classify any position which sought needlessly to inflict pain on an organism (or proto-organism), human or otherwise, as aberrant.

Again, pro-life advocates focus on protecting the unborn child. And so they appear to be ignoring the victims of abuse and neglect. But again, this is just a question of priorities. I do not honestly think pro-lifers are heartless or ignorant of the plight of women.

Standing in a sea of bodies, we have to make a decision:
Who am I going to help first?

So we argue about it, offer our professional opinions and get ****ty when a patient slips through our fingers. Hawkeye might be able to save that one, Winchester thinks this one is too far gone,.. and on the choppers keep coming in.

Definitions help us to declare our opinions, but our real actions are based on compassion. The basic difference between the two positions is just where we choose to focus our compassion. And our frustration stems from the experience of suffering all around us, and so little we can do to help.

Oh and Tiamat is quite right - debating the policy is very different from being involved first-hand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't know. I'd think the lady would react rather unkindly to you taking off to the bathroom to wash yourself off right after having sex together.

You'd be wrong. This is one of those areas where you need to have some experience before you can have an intelligent opinion.

[MrFun]

Earlier tonight, I saw a fascinating documentary on the development of a new life on the National Geographic channel. The documentary uses incredible visual methods to illustrate how life is conceived, how the fetus later develops, and so on. Much of the information was not new, but the visuals of the documentary were simply awesome.

After seeing the documentary, I have come to appreciate even more of the fact that I'm more of a conditional pro-choice advocate. The more extreme pro-choice advocates might use such denigrating epithets such as "lump of flesh" or something similar to depcreciate the fact that the fetus becomes a living human being.

I remain pro-choice, but I'm not as absolute in allowing all women in all circumstances to carry out an abortion. I believe that abortion is a momentous decision for the pregnant woman -- I can only find abortion morally acceptable in certain circumstances. I just cannot go along with the more extreme "it's just a lump of flesh" line of thought.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
After seeing the documentary, I have come to appreciate even more of the fact that I'm more of a conditional pro-choice advocate. The more extreme pro-choice advocates might use such denigrating epithets such as "lump of flesh" or something similar to depcreciate the fact that the fetus becomes a living human being.

Sorry, but this "potential" argument is really, really, silly.

If I take your logic, there can be no murder. All of us will be dead one day, so what's the harm in speeding up the process?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You'd be wrong. This is one of those areas where you need to have some experience before you can have an intelligent opinion.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You'd be wrong. This is one of those areas where you need to have some experience before you can have an intelligent opinion.

I can imagine the woman would want to do likewise. I imagine this is one of those areas where the power shower has been a boon

[Bill3000]

Why does this thread still exist?
Although to be fair, it's more civil than CivFanatics.