 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| member34259 wrote: | David, the day you knock up a woman, then medical intervention can transfer the fetus to your body, then you can have a say.
Until then, you, me and every male in the world do not have the final say. |
No. No, as with all matters of law, society has to decide what is right or wrong. As I wrote in the thread I linked to, putting the moral burden on each woman in each individual circumstance is effectively a complete endorsement of abortion being a valid option. In a democracy, everybody decides how laws are made, not just the people who are potentially affected by those laws.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
Proud Pies 
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, please don't bring up your anti abortion debate again......just go back and re-read every single page of your previous thread.
As I said in it, the minute you have the ability to fall pregnant, then you can make the decision.
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, but you and Member are just repeating the same line. Did you read what I just wrote? Whether you're right or wrong, your position completely endorses abortion as a valid choice. Not everybody thinks that way, and imho, that line is just a debate-silencing tactic used by people who either don't want to have to argue about it or don't want to have to think about it.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34259 wrote: | | David wrote: | Sorry, from the article I read it didn't sound like he said anything offensive, other than to trot out the standard religious line about virginity in relation to his own family (which my parents tried to grind into my head growing up). What are we supposed to be shocked at, that Abbott is a conservative Christian? Knew that.
As for his anti-abortion stance, it's one of the few things I agree with Abbott on. |
David, Abbott had sex with a woman before he or she was married. He actually thought he had a son with her until recently.
He had no concern for her virginity. So, hypocrite.
David, you are not a woman, so therefore you and Abbott have no say in abortion. |
So why do you?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | As for his anti-abortion stance, it's one of the few things I agree with Abbott on. |
David, as with Christopher Hitchens, you keep alluding to your anti-abortion stance without actually explaining it....  |
Haha, fair point. I suppose I feel like I've said all I need to say on this topic, and threads tend to get derailed very quickly once someone makes an argument one way or another.
Here's a thread from a couple of years ago:
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=41866 |
Cool, been wanting to take you and Christopher Hitchens on on this one 
Without having read your argument, the abortion issue is about the strongest matter of identification possible given the embryo-zygote-fetus-child is actually an integral part of the woman's biology. So in connection with arguments I've made elsewhere, if I can't tell a continental African not to identify with West Indians, then there is no way possible I can think I have the authority tell a woman she can't fully identify with her own biology, and in doing so make a decision about her own biology for herself.
Whenever Hitchens makes that comment I always think the bloke knows as much about women as he does Islam, namely very little  Hitchens judges Islam (and Christianity) in the classically idealist Enlightenment manner, which would also lead him to imagine there is only one definition of "life" and it is to be found somewhere in the Platonic heavens rather than inside the biology of a woman.
But that should be a staple for a relativist like you
[I will have a read of that thread - sounds entertaining!]. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, I'm not one for pseudo-spiritual notions of souls or of life being some sort of divine gift, my main concern is simply one of human rights. I believe there are also some serious inconsistencies in the majority of pro-choice viewpoints, and it kind of gets my hackles up when people paint the abortion debate as crazy fundies vs everyone else.
Unlike the majority of typical Christian Fundamentalist views there is actually no Biblical support for the 'pro-life' position - nowhere does it say in the Bible that it is a crime to kill an unborn child. That's not to say that a lot of the proponents of this position aren't nutbags, but I think there remains a very strong 'pro-life' position that isn't given the credibility it deserves.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sorry double post
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | As for his anti-abortion stance, it's one of the few things I agree with Abbott on. |
David, as with Christopher Hitchens, you keep alluding to your anti-abortion stance without actually explaining it.... :wink: |
Haha, fair point. I suppose I feel like I've said all I need to say on this topic, and threads tend to get derailed very quickly once someone makes an argument one way or another.
Here's a thread from a couple of years ago:
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=41866 |
Cool, been wanting to take you and Christopher Hitchens on on this one :P
Without having read your argument, the abortion issue is about the strongest matter of identification possible given the embryo-zygote-fetus-child is actually an integral part of the woman's biology. So in connection with arguments I've made elsewhere, if I can't tell a continental African not to identify with West Indians, then there is no way possible I can think I have the authority tell a woman she can't fully identify with her own biology, and in doing so make a decision about her own biology for herself.
Whenever Hitchens makes that comment I always think the bloke knows as much about women as he does Islam, namely very little :lol: Hitchens judges Islam (and Christianity) in the classically idealist Enlightenment manner, which would also lead him to imagine there is only one definition of "life" and it is to be found somewhere in the Platonic heavens rather than inside the biology of a woman.
But that should be a staple for a relativist like you :wink:
[I will have a read of that thread - sounds entertaining!]. |
Hitchens knows a hell of a lot about Islam, Chrisitanity, Judaism & religion in gerneral. He has always been an independent thinker but the pretend so called left only liked him when he shared their views. Whether you label him an elitist or not whether you trivialize his arguments or not Hitchens knows a great deal about religion & more than most. His book "God is not Great" from the bits I've been exposed to seem right on for me. His arguments against creationist are simply brilliant.
I disagree with him if he is anti abortion but he is well referenced & in my view gets it right on religion just about every time. He is not anti islam nor has he ever been. He is anti religious dogma & anti fundamentalist. He called Mother Theresa as it was & god love him for it. The so called left call any one they disagree with a fascist or a revisionist. Give me an independent thinker any time.
In terms of abortion -It's a womans choice plain & simple. Men can have views but the final say on the matter is a womans (difficult) choice. Now tell me what The Head Imam, The Chief Rabbi & Archbishoprick Pell have to say?
If you don't want abortion don't have one.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Yeah, I'm not one for pseudo-spiritual notions of souls or of life being some sort of divine gift, my main concern is simply one of human rights. I believe there are also some serious inconsistencies in the majority of pro-choice viewpoints, and it kind of gets my hackles up when people paint the abortion debate as crazy fundies vs everyone else. |
I have no problems with acknowledging the human rights aspect, and I think there is clearly more ambiguity the older a fetus gets, but I would say only women are in a position to deal with that ambiguity. Presumably we believe women are equal moral beings with as much insight into morality as Christopher Hitchens, so given he cannot possibly even "conceive" what it is like to be pregnant, we had best leave it to women to make that call.
Have you witnessed the emotional changes in a woman who has found out she is pregnant? It's like demon possession LOL. There is no way any woman could possibly take such a decision lightly; biology won't allow it. And the ambiguity as a pregnancy progresses would be infinitely more tangible for a woman than for us - whatever logical equations we come up with.
Only Christopher Hitchens could imagine that somehow he's noticed the complexity of abortion, but pregnant women haven't
To quote Judith Wright:
This is the maker and the made;
this is the question and reply;
the blind head butting at the dark,
the blaze of light along the blade.
Oh hold me, for I am afraid.
Not man's territory this one. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | Yeah, I'm not one for pseudo-spiritual notions of souls or of life being some sort of divine gift, my main concern is simply one of human rights. I believe there are also some serious inconsistencies in the majority of pro-choice viewpoints, and it kind of gets my hackles up when people paint the abortion debate as crazy fundies vs everyone else. |
I have no problems with human rights, and I think there is clearly more ambiguity the older a fetus gets, but I would say only women are in a position to deal with that ambiguity. Presumably we believe women are equal moral beings with as much insight into morality as Christopher Hitchens, so given he cannot possibly even "conceive" what it is like to be pregnant, we had best leave it to women to make that call.
Given the biology of reproduction commandeers the entire body of the woman, I'm sure the ambiguity of the matter is hardly lost on them. Have you witnessed the emotional changes in a woman who has found out she is pregnant? It's like demon possession LOL. There is no way any woman could possibly take such a decision lightly; biology won't allow it. And the ambiguity as a pregnancy progresses would be infinitely more tangible for a woman than for us - whatever logical equations we come up with.
Only Christopher Hitchens could imagine that somehow he's noticed the complexity of abortion, but pregnant women haven't
To quote Judith Wright:
This is the maker and the made;
this is the question and reply;
the blind head butting at the dark,
the blaze of light along the blade.
Oh hold me, for I am afraid.
Not man's territory this one. |
I agree about the ambiguity and disagree with the conclusion.
I'm pro choice and believe it's up to the woman to choose whether she has an abortion or not - up to a point. For me, that point is where the foetus goes from being just that, to a viable baby. ATM that line is drawn at 20 weeks and I'm happy enough with that.
And going back to the original point of the thread, Yeah Bud is being a bit hypocritical but he's honest enough to state his personal views even when he knows they're unpopular.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Black_White
Joined: 19 Mar 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Yeah, but you and Member are just repeating the same line. Did you read what I just wrote? Whether you're right or wrong, your position completely endorses abortion as a valid choice. Not everybody thinks that way, and imho, that line is just a debate-silencing tactic used by people who either don't want to have to argue about it or don't want to have to think about it. |
Oh David.
Surely by now you have realised that I'm always right.
So no right or wrong, just right. |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | member34259 wrote: | | David wrote: | Sorry, from the article I read it didn't sound like he said anything offensive, other than to trot out the standard religious line about virginity in relation to his own family (which my parents tried to grind into my head growing up). What are we supposed to be shocked at, that Abbott is a conservative Christian? Knew that.
As for his anti-abortion stance, it's one of the few things I agree with Abbott on. |
David, Abbott had sex with a woman before he or she was married. He actually thought he had a son with her until recently.
He had no concern for her virginity. So, hypocrite.
David, you are not a woman, so therefore you and Abbott have no say in abortion. |
So why do you? |
I DO!
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Yeah, but you and Member are just repeating the same line. Did you read what I just wrote? Whether you're right or wrong, your position completely endorses abortion as a valid choice. Not everybody thinks that way, and imho, that line is just a debate-silencing tactic used by people who either don't want to have to argue about it or don't want to have to think about it. |
David, don't go there!
I have MY reasons, apart from being a female and it's my body and my choice. Don't fk n tell me that i'm just repeating lines as debate-silencing. Go have a life David.....one day you just might understand another person's point of view and reasonings.
And don't for one minute think I say what I've said because I don't want to argue or think about it.
IT'S A VERY PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL CHOICE - BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS........IT'S THE WOMAN'S BODY SO SHE HAS TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION
NOT YOU, NOR THE MAD MONK!
Sorry, I really get pissed off when people think they know better than others and they could never ever be in that position.
Even if both partners decide that an abortion is the right outcome.......it's still the woman that makes the ultimate decision as it's her body.
HER BODY = HER CHOICE
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Proud Pies wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | member34259 wrote: | | David wrote: | Sorry, from the article I read it didn't sound like he said anything offensive, other than to trot out the standard religious line about virginity in relation to his own family (which my parents tried to grind into my head growing up). What are we supposed to be shocked at, that Abbott is a conservative Christian? Knew that.
As for his anti-abortion stance, it's one of the few things I agree with Abbott on. |
David, Abbott had sex with a woman before he or she was married. He actually thought he had a son with her until recently.
He had no concern for her virginity. So, hypocrite.
David, you are not a woman, so therefore you and Abbott have no say in abortion. |
So why do you? |
I DO! |
LOL, Yeah you do. But when a bloke says that a bloke has no right to an opinion on abortion he's just shot himself in the arse and self administered his own opinion redundant.
| Quote: | | IT'S A VERY PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL CHOICE - BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS........IT'S THE WOMAN'S BODY SO SHE HAS TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION |
Agree completely, but IMO that decision needs to have some parameters within to work. It's not open ended.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Hitchens knows a hell of a lot about Islam, Chrisitanity, Judaism & religion in gerneral. He has always been an independent thinker but the pretend so called left only liked him when he shared their views. Whether you label him an elitist or not whether you trivialize his arguments or not Hitchens knows a great deal about religion & more than most. His book "God is not Great" from the bits I've been exposed to seem right on for me. His arguments against creationist are simply brilliant. |
Mate, with all due respect he knows very little about all three of them - hence he debates nutters and extremists who themselves know very little about all three of them. When is the last time you saw him debate a respected intellectual - say a professor of religion or philosophy from a major university? When is the last time you heard him attempt to say anything serious about religion, say explain the Islamic world view and how it has changed over the last century? Have you ever heard him discuss Islamic thought in any detail at all? Have you ever heard him explain say the origins of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), their historical background, their importance in Classical Hebrew thought and the way they inform the contemporary Jewish world view? Never. Have you ever heard him discuss say the moral ambiguity of classical Hebrew narrative? Never. None of the interesting questions religious scholars actually ask. (And I won't mention eastern thought; his religious tour bus somehow never makes it to India and beyond ).
Apart from convenient remarks about the brutality of the ancient gods, Hitchens doesn't cope too well with exploring modes of thinking outside his imaginary intellectual lineage from Plato. And having a Jewish grandmother doesn't mean you know anything about the Tanakh and Talmud, let alone the diaspora or the holocaust.
Further, his arguments against theism are centuries old. Nothing new there. Well put though for the modern reader in places, but mate the intellectual work was done long ago under far more trying conditions than these. And have you seen him discuss religion with liberal/humanist Christians? He posits extreme positions, they don't bite because they don't hold those extreme positions, and he looks silly.
If I recall this Q&A held in Australia is revealing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVxJr6adFmQ&feature=PlayList&p=A226174E5EAB808F&index=0&playnext=1
The bloke struggles with people who don't follow the fundamentalist script. And if I recall correctly he was extremely deferential to Waleed Aly in those videos - note his usual smart arsery towards Islam was quickly tucked away when he met an intelligent and respectable bloke who knows far more about Islam than himself.
In the end I suspect Hitchens' attracts a lot of (often very white and very young) libertarians who are looking to reaffirm their faith in their cultural superiority by living vicariously through a simplistic Enlightenment narrative that places them at the pinnacle of human thought. Beating up on fundamentalist religionists is one way they try to affirm their fragile faith.
To illustrate how far away he is from the questions that matter, take his wager to "Name a good deed or action that could only be done by a person of faith that couldn't be performed by a non-believer/atheist." All this is doing is rebutting a fundamentalist exceptionalism which no self-respecting thinker actually believes. If he was serious about critiquing the world he would be asking something like: "Name an evil deed in one mode of thought which does not have an analogue in another mode of thought."
If Hitchens can't countenance the complexity of relativity then he can't be taken seriously. We've only been discussing poststructuralism for, what, four decades now?
If I didn't find Hitchens entertaining and if I didn't think he was literarily talented I'd call him an intellectual poseur. But for all his trickery I actually like the bloke. I suspect he plays to my own hidden enlightenment delusions and past desires to be a public intellectual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
