| BookTalk.org News |
| • Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Mr. Pessimistic 
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3530
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender: 
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
I am sorry for posting again after my last post. I know this is a sign of arrogance and all, but I sometimes think of things after the fact...ever happen to any of you? Anyway...
I see my rebuttal of your original "5 sins of the Mr. P." was successful (no response was even really possible now was it?) It was really a poor attmept and showed little research into the discussion off of which you were basing them!! (See, THAT was a goad. I am famous for using a tactic I am accused of for effect after it is shown to be baseless).
| Indie wrote: |
| You aren't going to convince Niall001 of anything, any more than he could convince you that his position is correct. And I think that is what this boils down to, not the validity of the argument, but who is right. |
The thing of it is, I DO think that Niall's position is correct...for him. And this is why I feel MY position is the best for all. It leaves the choice for anyone to be comfortable in their position. I am no trying to promote death, just choice. But when someon tells me they want to pass laws barring my choice or anyones choice in this matter specifically, I bristle. I am a more agressive person, some people dont like that, and I dont really care. People who do not pass snap judgements know me to be a very good a caring person.
| Indie wrote: |
| I think your arrogance matches your postcount, and neither does anything for me. |
Just keep in mind that I am not out to please you in any way. Nor will I sugar coat my positions and the manner in which I discuss them. Who is the one name calling and attacking here most? I think it is not me my friend.
I am so glad that, despite my heated discussion, I am coming out on top here. (AOOOP! See, and there was the Arrogance!) lol
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
indie
Experienced
Usergroups: None
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Thanks
Given: 2
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Wow... just wow.
I'm done here, are you? (purely rhetorical question.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3530
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| indie wrote: |
Wow... just wow.
I'm done here, are you? (purely rhetorical question.) |
I was done. You said you were done way back when and then chose launch a personal attack. Just admit it and realize that you may just have flamed the issue up.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7364
Thanks
Given: 62
Received: 20 in 16 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
This discussion reminds me of a topic I created on a different message board years ago. I titled the topic, "101 Irrational Beliefs," and then I proceeded to list everything from astral projection to the God belief. Well, this discussion became so heated and lasted so long that it set records on that particular message board. We had over 5000 posts in one thread.
In an effort to bring the discussion back on track I created a new thread titled, "Please Pass The Fire Extinguisher," as a way of acknowledging that the upcoming discussion was going to be hot - heated enough to need a fire extinguisher. And it was with a total of over 3000 posts once again. I think Niall was making a light-hearted statement with his prediction that the thread he was creating was bound to be heated and visitors would have to be masochistic to join it. Then again I did not read the first thread so there could be something else going on here.
Nick is right that we need all the discussion we can get right now. The forums have been slow so even disputes and differences of opinion need to be allowed to run in whatever direction they may. Quality over quantity when quantity is sufficient. But beggars can't be choosers and right now we need discussions that fuel the fire. Nick, you're hired for that. 
PS Does anyone know a good attorney in Florida? I was hit from behind by an underage drunk driver Monday night and am dealing with some severe pain. My car was completely destroyed. And this little monster of a teenager had no remorse and was "combatant" with Florida Highway Patrol and all of the doctors and nurses at the hospital. My back, neck and arm are screwed now.
Nick, I see you posted pics in the new album section of the site. We should all try to encourage everyone to do the same so that that section grows. I will add some photos myself soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NaddiaAoC
Freshman
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 240
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:19 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Chris,
I couldn’t help but think of that old fire extinguisher thread when reading through this thread as well. I especially think of it when I read statements like this from Indie:
| Quote: |
| All else aside, that is your mistake. You, or I, or Niall001 or anyone else cannot prove our points of view to be valid. The simply are valid as such, and by sharing them are subject to other's scrutiny, but it is up to them to decide if it's the right point of view for them, or if they think it's wrong. You aren't going to convince Niall001 of anything, any more than he could convince you that his position is correct. And I think that is what this boils down to, not the validity of the argument, but who is right. |
How does Indie know that Nick won’t convince Niall of anything or that Niall won’t convince Nick of anything? Abortion may be an old argument, but people’s views do change. I argued mercilessly with you over this subject, and my views changed drastically as a result of those heated debates. Exchanging ideas may not change anyone’s point of view, but it may. And even if views don’t change, we may at least come to understand where others are coming from a little better by considering their point of view.
I haven’t followed other abortion threads on BookTalk to know what arguments have been made. Niall, you challenged Nick stating that he does not understand your views. I’m curious, what is your point of view? You come across to me as a prolifer. What’s your position on abortion, legally and morally? What are your reasons for your position? You state that the important criteria when discussing abortion is the point at which the taking of human life should be illegal. Is that correct? Why is the mere existence of human life in the embryonic state more important than a woman’s right to make choices for her own body and future? If you are “pro-life,” do you make any exceptions for abortion, I.E. rape, risks to the woman’s health or life, etc?
Cheryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3530
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| NaddiaAoC wrote: |
I especially think of it when I read statements like this from Indie:
| Quote: |
| All else aside, that is your mistake. You, or I, or Niall001 or anyone else cannot prove our points of view to be valid...The[y] simply are valid as such, and by sharing them are subject to other's scrutiny, but it is up to them to decide if it's the right point of view for them, or if they think it's wrong. You aren't going to convince Niall001 of anything, any more than he could convince you that his position is correct. And I think that is what this boils down to, not the validity of the argument, but who is right. |
How does Indie know that Nick won’t convince Niall of anything or that Niall won’t convince Nick of anything? ..... |
I took umbrage with this statement as well. It seemed like a way of just walking away from an important topic. Everyone here knows me. I am a firebrand at times. But despite my heated and sometimes over-the-top battles with Niall and Mad, we have all always had a respect for each other that I think is shown in the fact that we all keep coming back and TRYING to discuss things. I do not say that I am 100% right, but I do feel strongly in what I know and how I feel. Since we all need to live together in this civilization, the throwing up of hands and not talking about a topic that may be heated or may not change minds seems to me a dangerous idea.
I think things got over heated because it was really just Niall and I talking here. If more people join in, I may come back to this and try again. Nothing wrong with that. I am always willing to engage in discussion...even after a bad taste.
Chris, thanks for the job!  You know I am always here to try to get things going. Just been busy lately with other stuff so I have not been contributing much. Hopefully I will be able to find more time in the coming months of fall/winter.
And, oh my non-god! I hope you are ok? Is your wife ok? My best wishes to you.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:55 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| NaddiaAoC wrote: |
I haven’t followed other abortion threads on BookTalk to know what arguments have been made. Niall, you challenged Nick stating that he does not understand your views. I’m curious, what is your point of view? You come across to me as a prolifer. What’s your position on abortion, legally and morally? What are your reasons for your position? You state that the important criteria when discussing abortion is the point at which the taking of human life should be illegal. Is that correct?
|
Nadia I guess you could describe me as prolifer it you'd like. Brevity is a virtue sometimes, but it can also confuse and annoy people as has become evident in this thread. I think that abortion should be illegal under most circumstances, the exception being where the life of the mother is threatened and no viable alternative course of action exists.
| Quote: |
| Why is the mere existence of human life in the embryonic state more important than a woman’s right to make choices for her own body and future? If you are “pro-life,” do you make any exceptions for abortion, I.E. rape, risks to the woman’s health or life, etc? |
Why is human life in an embryonic state described as mere?
I haven't the time to give you the long versions, but I just can't see any basis for regarding a neonatal human or prenatal human in the later stages of pregnancy the right to life and not the prenatal human during the earlier stages of development. The criteria that is usually invoked relates to consciousness and/or viability, yet clearly the human right to life is not based on these things as other humans who have terminal diseaes or who lose consciousness for considerable periods of time do not have their right to life taken from them. Similarly, animals who have a level of consciousness that is far more developed that of the neonatal human and who are viable do not receive any rights whatsoever.
When it comes to abortion, I just find it totally inconsistent to allow neonates, those with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious a right to life while denying that same right to the foetus during the early stages of its development and to animals who function at higher levels than neonates.
As for this thread, Chris pretty much nailed the reasoning behind my choice of thread title. I'm not certain if Nick is still participating in the actual discussion or just the meta, but I'm going to avoid the meta aspects of this thread for now because I just don't have the time or the patience. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the subject, just so long as its in the right spirit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7364
Thanks
Given: 62
Received: 20 in 16 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:19 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| I'll eventually make a post about this car accident. There is much more to it. I am really really lucky to be alive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indie
Experienced
Usergroups: None
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Thanks
Given: 2
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Niall001 wrote: |
| When it comes to abortion, I just find it totally inconsistent to allow neonates, those with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious a right to life while denying that same right to the foetus during the early stages of its development and to animals who function at higher levels than neonates. |
I agree, it's totally inconsistent. I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week.
We, as a society, inflict so much damn suffering in the name of preserving life, that we forget there are fates worse than death. We soothe our own pain and fear of loss by forcing the survival of those who won't live long anyway, and end up in extreme pain and distress that could all be alleviated with a strong shot of morphine...
Perhaps most disgusting of all is, (in the US and Canada anyway, not so sure of other places) in the rare instance of allowing someone to die, how we go about the task. Starving and dehydrating the person, inflicting even more pain and distress. The (ir)rationale for this is to not take an active role in causing the death, which is utter bullshit. As much as a lie by omission is still a lie, omission of life preserving measures is tantamount to killing. What people fail to accept is that there is nothing inherently wrong in the act to begin with, which actually makes their cruel inaction the crime (of ethics not law, perhaps.)
Sure, life is precious, but perpetuating it past the point of being able to enjoy, or even perceive it, is cruel IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week. |
Personally, I can understand one might want to take such a course of action, but it would be problematic in the extreme to implement. As you seem to recognise, it would be difficult to determine what the minimal quality of life should be, who should determine it and whether parents should have a choice be allowed to not kill their newborn child. Still, if somebody is dieing, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the least painful manner possible.
However, I think think we're moving away from the topic of abortion here. What I would note is that you suggest that it would be cruel to force the newborn to live. I'm not sure that this is the case given the extremely limited capabilities of the newborn under normal circumstances, let alone in some cases of severe deformity where the newborn does not possess even the modest capacities that a fully functioning newborn has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indie
Experienced
Usergroups: None
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Thanks
Given: 2
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Niall001 wrote: |
| indie wrote: |
| I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week. |
Personally, I can understand one might want to take such a course of action, but it would be problematic in the extreme to implement. As you seem to recognise, it would be difficult to determine what the minimal quality of life should be, who should determine it and whether parents should have a choice be allowed to not kill their newborn child. Still, if somebody is dieing, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the least painful manner possible. |
Agreed, it is extremely difficult to come up with that baseline measurement for quality of life, past which euthanasia would be considered. I think like most treatments the ultimate decision would have to lay with the parents, based on informed opinions of their doctors and the applicable case studies on record.
| Niall001 wrote: |
| However, I think think we're moving away from the topic of abortion here. What I would note is that you suggest that it would be cruel to force the newborn to live. I'm not sure that this is the case given the extremely limited capabilities of the newborn under normal circumstances, let alone in some cases of severe deformity where the newborn does not possess even the modest capacities that a fully functioning newborn has. |
It was off on a tangent. I thought the subjects sufficiently related to make the post. Abortion and euthanasia have much in common, and many differences too.
Another extreme example, but one that doesn't rely on physical defect of the neonate would be something like this:
In a region where starvation is commonplace, disease is rampant, and the birth of another child could threaten the existence of the entire family, abortion is not only logical but quite possibly necessary to prolong the existence of the mother, and any other children. Sadly this is not without precedent. There's documentation of thousands of neonates left to die in the snow in Russia and the satellite states of the former Soviet Union, often because the family as a whole would starve by trying to feed one more mouth. Abortion of a non-perceptive embryo seems to me a much less cruel resolution in this kind of extreme scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NaddiaAoC
Freshman
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 240
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Niall,
Let me start off by acknowledging a couple things you said. First of all, I understand your position. For most of my life I held the same (or a very similar position). I was strongly prolife in every case except with regard to emergent situations that threatened the mother’s life. My prolife view was shaped by the conservative Christian religion I was raised in, and the view that all human life is precious to God and should not be destroyed by humans. Even in cases of rape, the human life that results is God’s, not mine. Now I’m curious why you hold such strong prolife views? Are they theistic in nature? My experience has been that the majority of people who are prolife are either religious or they have been influenced by prolife propaganda (like the horrible pictures of fetuses being aborted) without really putting any thought into their position. I’m sure that doesn’t characterize everyone. I don’t want to make assumptions about your beliefs, so what influences have led you to take this position?
Another thing I want to mention is that I agree with you on a couple points you made. I agree that a unique human life starts at conception. Clearly (to me anyway), life exists on a continuum. Life is present in the sperm and ovum prior to conception and life is present long after conception, but the fertilization of the ovum produces a new and unique human life. I also agree with your point about conscious non-human life. To say that we should not kill a human based upon such criteria as consciousness and viability, but then to turn around and kill a non-human animal who possesses those same criteria is a hypocrisy, IMO. Good point.
Now I have a challenge for you, Niall. You’ve laid out your prolife argument, but what do you know about the prochoice position? What do you think are the strongest prochoice arguments? What are the weakest? If you had to play devil’s advocate and argue abortion from a prochoice point of view without giving away your biases, what arguments would you make?
Nad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7364
Thanks
Given: 62
Received: 20 in 16 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I'll be making you a mod when I figure out how to set up ranks, Cheryl. I thought I'd ad this unrelated behind-the-scenes message right here to confuse and annoy everyone.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
| |
