I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Abortion is not what people think it is. It's not about women's rights. It is from it's inception a means to kill the black population of America.

You seem to think that abortion is a new invention, introduced to American society as a vehicle for progressive Nazism and bigotry. It's not. As long as there has been a sex drive, there have been abortions. Abortions have been used in all cultures for 10s of 1000s of years.

Tw0Sides

beezzer

I found it ironic that gay rights supporters spoke of the rights of the individual, yet those self-same people disregarded the rights of the unborn individual.

So people supporting Gay Rights, are all for Abortion ?

I think you got a Candidate for Dumbest Reply of the Month there Beez.
But I'll play your "Game of Ironic" a bit.

I find it Ironic that the Same People who are Anti-Choice, Want to eliminate Support Payments and Funding for those who need help raising these children.
The Anti-Choice crowd get all teary eyed when they are Fetuses , but when they are born...
"You on your own B****h "

Dumbest reply of the month?

SCORE!

"You're on your own" versus nanny state.

(I'll share the trophy with you.)

reply to post by Maslo


It seems that, essentially, most people just say "we will handle that when we get there."

I think it might be short-sighted, personally. But, it doesnt seem to be a facet that many want to discuss.

I truly feel our understanding of this issue shouldnt be based in what is convenient, but in actual science and fact.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Basing legislation on science and fact is a lofty goal, indeed. Alas, I don't see such ideology as forthcoming any time soon. As long as we have states like Texas, that forbid the use of the word "evolution" in K-12 textbooks, and lobbies to include creationism in it's curriculum; as long as you have states that force doctors to lie to or omit critical information from pregnant mothers, legislators who insist that pseudo science and religious moral superiority should be considered as equal arguments in deciding legislation, that goal is, sadly, an illusive dream.

windword
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Basing legislation on science and fact is a lofty goal, indeed. Alas, I don't see such ideology as forthcoming any time soon. As long as we have states like Texas, that forbid the use of the word "evolution" in K-12 textbooks, and lobbies to include creationism in it's curriculum; as long as you have states that force doctors to lie to or omit critical information from pregnant mothers, legislators who insist that pseudo science and religious moral superiority should be considered as equal arguments in deciding legislation, that goal is, sadly, an illusive dream.

Is it safe to assume you are against religion, in part or as a whole?

I think that too many people believe they know what the science is on a topic without ever performing science themselves, and I see this as the main issue in religion as well (no personal exploration and strong appeals to authority).

On this topic, life-rights may eventually be shown that they should be given at conception, just as many religions state. The division between science and religion, imo, is a false one. To the vast majority of the population, they are one and the same (just pick your authority that confirms your bias, and "rah rah rah" against the "other side").

Either way, I would appreciate a response to the last post I made to you. It was my attempt at more clear communication between us, and I am doing the best I can. But, when it is met with silence from all sides, it is not particularly encouraging. I am not sure that topics such as this have many people participating with the idea of better understanding each other, but more with the goal of "converting" and/or continually justification past actions (that may or may not need a defense in the first place, given the state of our current understanding).

reply to post by Serdgiam


I didn't reply because I considered my silence to be an "agree to disagree" proposition. It wasn't my intent to blow off your post.

It is unclear what scientific facts you have brought up that pertain to what I am saying. In seeing the studies and data you are using to determine what is scientific fact and biological realities, I can try to see what you see.

What kinds of studies and scientific facts would you like us to be exploring?

As it stands, it seems to me that when we individually receive limited rights, and citizens rights, changes to fit whatever stage the science of medicine currently resides.

The US Constitution infers that mankind has inalienable rights. The 9th Amendment, I think, infers those rights are too many to enumerate.

I believe that we are endowed, as humans, with empirical autonomy, freedom of choice and free will. We give up certain rights in order to live in a compassionate and civilized society. Some of our rights may never be realized by some, and some rights need to be fought for in order to be claimed.

But, what are the possible endpoints? Where might our laws finally settle in around something that is static?

What is static? we don't live in a static society.

We are basically determining when a mass of cells receives certain rights, as well as why we set the requirements we do (which is where the science part comes in). A mass of cells with the genetics of a plant does not receive the same rights as a mass of cells with the genetics of a human. However, just having human DNA isnt considered enough, there are additional requirements that set a certain parameter. The question is, where should we set that parameter, and do we even have the understanding to appropriately do so at this level of scientific progress?

That parameter must be determined by weighing the autonomy of the fully established human being and her rights, against biological reality. Is a woman compelled to reproduce simply based of her biology, or does she have the right to override biology and prevent conception? Are we condemned to biological fate?

If conception happens, and being a mother is the last thing that a woman wants to happen, is her biological mechanism more important than her emotional feelings?

Too many possibilities remain for me, personally, to have an unwavering stance. As science and medicine progress, we may come to understand that that parameter should be set at conception because of new data and discoveries.

What kind of data would convince you, or me, that conception is a sacred state of being?

On the other hand, we may find that parameter should be set at not a specific time reference, but when that mass of cells makes its first "choice." Meaning, at the point that the mass of cells makes its first conscious movement as a specific lifeform, it then inherits the rights of that life form. That conscious movement could be a brain wave function, or movement of the mass of cells, etc. In the end, it could even be right about where it is now, except with more specifity.

Reflex and conscious choice are two very different things. I don't think that humans begin to make conscious choices until well into their post birth lives.

In religious terms, it is essentially looking at when the spirit becomes bonded with the physical body (soul). I may be wrong on this, but I do not feel it is any more clear *exactly* when this "moment" happens in the religious arena than it is in the area of medicine.

Personally, I don't think that ensoulment issues should really have anything to do with the abortion debate. If the unborn have a soul, it's up to "god" to deal with that. If it doesn't, then the issue is moot.

I dont think we have the proper understanding to truly make factual assertions on what is a very important distinction.

Which is why we should err on the side of the autonomous person and their rights.

windword
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I didn't reply because I considered my silence to be an "agree to disagree" proposition. It wasn't my intent to blow off your post.

I am trying to understand your position, but to minimize the desire to "agree to disagree" I will just omit my own as much as possible from here on.

What kinds of studies and scientific facts would you like us to be exploring?

The ones that you have used to create your scientific facts and biological realities that you referred to earlier.

The US Constitution infers that mankind has inalienable rights. The 9th Amendment, I think, infers those rights are too many to enumerate.

I believe that we are endowed, as humans, with empirical autonomy, freedom of choice and free will. We give up certain rights in order to live in a compassionate and civilized society. Some of our rights may never realized by some, and some rights need to be fought for in order to be claimed.

To be specific and avoid getting off track, I am attempting to discuss at which point those rights are given, and just as importantly, why. In that, I agree with what you have said in a lot of ways, but it is essentially off topic. We are not necessarily speaking about what rights are given, but when they are given and why.

What is static? we don't live in a static society.

Correct, which is why I included the qualifiers such as "might."

That parameter must be determined by weighing the autonomy of the fully established human being and her rights, against biological reality. Is a woman compelled to reproduce simply based of her biology, or does she have the right to override biology and prevent conception? Are we condemned to biological fate?

Going back to the main question, when is something determined to be a fully established human being, and just as importantly, why? Some studies, data, etc would be preferrable but in lieu of those, your opinion is also welcome.

If conception happens, and being a mother is the last thing that a woman wants to happen, is her biological mechanism more important than her emotional feelings?

It depends on the circumstances, and I am not one to use extremes to justify general standards. If its just because it is an "inconvenience," then given the possibilities, the emotions are near the bottom of the list in a topic about science and what may be hard, difficult truth.

What kind of data would convince you, or me, that conception is a sacred state of being?

Thats the thing, isnt it? Most people dont even know what data could exist, much less how to go about it and implement it. I would kindly ask you what evidence would you accept?

Reflex and conscious choice are two very different things. I don't think that humans begin to make conscious choices until well into their post birth lives.

I am not interested in semantics in yet another topic where we havent even begun to understand our reality.

Personally, I don't think that ensoulment issues should really have anything to do with the abortion debate. If the unborn have a soul, it's up to "god" to deal with that. If it doesn't, then the issue is moot.

Thats fine if you dont want to, but for many people, that encompasses the entire topic. I was alluding to science and religion pointing to figuring out the same thing. I was attempting to include more viewpoints than just yours or mine.

Which is why we should err on the side of the autonomous person and their rights.

What qualifies as an autonomous person, and at what *exact* point does it begin? Is there a standard, or is it arbitrary? It seems to me there is zero standard, and this is exactly what I am attempting to discuss. But, I do think our misunderstandings on this topic may be insurmountable.

Back to the drawing board for me, thanks for your perspective. ETA: For my own education, do you view these as your beliefs as part of a larger ideaology, as a general reality/truth that others have yet to accept, or just your opinion on the matter?

reply to post by Serdgiam

ETA: For my own education, do you view these as your beliefs as part of a larger ideaology, as a general reality/truth that others have yet to accept, or just your opinion on the matter?

I think that most people, who inject themselves into the anti-abortion argument, are basing their opinions on misinformation, simplistic explanations that lead people into guided assumptions, emotional pleas and the appeal to authority and religious superiority and fear.

To be specific and avoid getting off track, I am attempting to discuss at which point those rights are given, and just as importantly, why.

In my opinion, rights just are. One person can't bestow rights upon another. They are potentially available at the moment that they are demanded. Sometimes they have to be fought for.

We are not necessarily speaking about what rights are given, but when they are given and why.

Again, this is common sense. As parents, we gradually give our children the freedom to experience the consequences of their free will. When they become adults, we no longer have the physical resources or the manipulative tools to deprive our children of using their free will without our permission.

In society we use a system of rewards and punishments to influence how an individual uses their free will. We pave inroads to keep them on the tracts that we create for them.

If its just because it is an "inconvenience," then given the possibilities, the emotions are near the bottom of the list in a topic about science and what may be hard, difficult truth.

One man's inconvenience is another man's mental breakdown. Emotions are also a biological reaction that is related to a basic instinctual system of survival. Emotions are necessary to guide us into introspection on our actions and the determination of an inner moral compass. Simplistically speaking, something that makes us feel bad is bad.

However, I agree that emotion should not be considered in the final scientific analysis, when exploring our environment, because we are uncomfortable with some harsh reality. For scientific purposes, we need to check our emotions at the door.

Thats the thing, isnt it? Most people dont even know what data could exist, much less how to go about it and implement it. I would kindly ask you what evidence would you accept?

I can't imagine any evidence that would convince me that fertilization is sacred state of existence that shouldn't be questioned. What kind of breaking news would you imagine could merge that would change a hard core pro-choicer like myself?

I don't know, maybe if we were somehow able to listen to the thoughts of an embryo/fetus in a pre-viable stage, making plans for it's future outside the womb.........That would change my mind on the viability line, but not on contraception.

windword
What kind of breaking news would you imagine could merge that would change a hard core pro-choicer like myself?

I dont think anything will ever exist that can convince someone their beliefs should change, other than their own choice. I think both sides in the debate appeal to authority, and neither side has actually explored the core principles behind what is being discussed. Because of this, it makes it difficult to have a discussion on that topic without it turning into a form of debate out of sheer habit.

I appreciate your insights, windword. I am not sure how to formulate my thoughts to bring it from a debate to a discussion, and undoubtedly we both have our parts to play in it. I am still learning how to hone down what I want to say in a way that others can comprehend where I am coming from. Its a two way street, and regardless of topic, one which I have much to learn.

Thanks for your time.

windword
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Abortion is not what people think it is. It's not about women's rights. It is from it's inception a means to kill the black population of America.

You seem to think that abortion is a new invention, introduced to American society as a vehicle for progressive Nazism and bigotry. It's not. As long as there has been a sex drive, there have been abortions. Abortions have been used in all cultures for 10s of 1000s of years.

No, I am well aware of how far back it goes, but what happened in the 20th century is backed up by facts. Did you even watch the video? I put in the short part because though it is an amazing history presentation from a black man and woman's point of view as narrated and sourced, it is hard for many to bother to watch anything over 10 minutes.

The American Eugenics society wanted a way to get rid of blacks, and any poor they see as a burden. Why is it when blacks suddenly were getting their civil rights abortion came front and center and abortion clinics were focused on black neighborhoods and not poor white neighborhoods. Did you even read what Nixon said?

I know, for you it's easier to quip about ancient history, but you have not addressed any of the points I have brought up, and I really am not surprised because the truth is pretty hard to refute. I generally view lack of dealing with my posts and the facts presented as you have no real argument to support what you say and just disagree.

stormdancer777
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

OH I replied before I saw your post.

AS I have said abortion grew out of ignorance, one day science will have the answer.

However, don't be surprised if they come up with another solution to eradicate most of us.
www.dailymail.co.uk... html

edit on 103030p://bThursday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 103030p://bThursday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

They already have:

1. Vaccines
2. Cancer
3. GMO
4. Poverty (lack of proper nutrition and health care)
5. Fluoride
6. No vitamins or minerals in our food as we once had in abundance
7. Wars
8. Man created Pandemics
9. Franken food (processed and how our meat is grown and slaughtered)

They are well on their way to getting what they want.

reply to post by InTheLight


With as cheap and available as birth control is how about they show a little respect for the life they could create and simply be responsible and if they can't then get sterilized. Abortion is a symptom of societal decay, lack of respect for life, and genocide of the black community (see my earlier post, Maafa 21 will shock you).

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


If there are people that are coercing others into doing something for the purpose of killing of a certain population of people, and deliberately steering away from fixing the problems at hand, they should be called out and exposed. Just as the reasoning for killing 10's of 1000's men, women and children, in order to liberate and bring democracy to others was a tactic of coercion to affect another kind of population control.

No poor black women should be denied an abortion, or forced to give birth to an wanted baby, because other's have a bigoted agenda against her kind. It's her choice to make. Black people don't seem to be so endangered that their women should lose the right to choose, while rich white women can get an abortion easily.

reply to post by windword


Black women are killing 50% of their babies! In the 1960's the Black Panther Party saw what was happening and declared the pro-abortion movement to be in truth a movement to kill off the black population. I really don't think you watched any of the Maafa videos. Did you?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


No, I'm not gonna watch your videos.

IF it's true that black women are aborting 50% of their pregnancies, then it's also true that black women are carrying 50% of their pregnancies to term! We need to address contraception so that there are less unwanted pregnancies, not limit these women's resources. We don't need to change the birth rate, we need to change the unwanted pregnancy rate.

reply to post by windword


Why would you not want to learn the history of black genocide in America? You're hatred of anything I present is only limiting your understanding. Despite my disagreeing with another member who chooses to engage in discussion with me, if they present a video or link a site I watch it. I have no sacred cows that I fear being harmed by information. Truth is truth, and I take advantage of all information and then I determine if it has basis to be considered in whole or in part.

What you are saying it you are disagreeing with my information that you won't even spend 10 minutes watching, and thus your disagreement is not based on fact but emotion.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I'm not watching the video because the subject doesn't interest me. While there may be disparagement between the black community and the white community, I don't think that race has any place in the legal issues of abortion.

I stand for and fight for women's reproductive choice. Someone else can fight for race equality.

I don't see how more unwanted babies, black or white, helps anything. Like I said, we don't need to change birth rate numbers, we need to change the unwanted pregnancy rate. That doesn't have anything to do with genocide.

reply to post by windword


You wouldn't know if race has any impact on the issue of abortion because you are ignorant of history and that short 10 min portion of Maafa spells it out. Again, you know everything and listen to know one who points facts out to you because you don't need them.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Thank you for your attempt to discuss this issue intelligently.
When people won't listen to what you present them they are the reason it can't be discussed intelligenty.

Perhaps someone following what you shared will gain some insight and will walk away from this post having learned something. Don't be disheartened by those with closed ears. If you opened one mind you may have saved a life.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I find it ironic and hypocritical that you're pulling the eugenics card, and claiming that abortion is a method of genocide against unwelcome populations, and in the same argumental breath, you say this:

I wish those who don't care would just get sterilized and save themselves the trouble of pregnancy.

Why do care what others care about? Do you want to see contraception outlawed because racist bigots used it promote their agenda? Do you think that black women should be forced to give birth to unwanted children and denied contraception and abortion because of the actions of some racist bigot?

Do you think that most black women don't know that they really don't want an abortion when they ask for one? Do you think that they're otherwise incapable of making the right choice for themselves?

If so, then you are as much as a bigot as the people portrayed in your videos.