![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Toward A More Constructive Dialogue
I could have phrased Monday night's entry more tactfully, and probably should have. Several people whose opinions I value and respect have noted that accusing those who disagree with you of being stupid, deluded or worse will win no converts and prove no points.
With the outrage and frustration filtered out, what I was really trying to say was, "What are you people thinking??"
On that level, this was not an entirely unsuccessful attempt at communication. Several of you did give some indication of what you've been thinking.
You think, apparently, that George Walker Bush is a "conservative".
Please note that I did not attack the conservative philosophy. I did not claim that one had to be Stupid, Deluded or Corrupt to adhere to conservative ideals. While I disagree with many -- though not all -- conservative positions, while I am in fact far more willing to proudly embrace the label of "Liberal" than any candidate endorsed by the Democratic party in well over a decade, I can indeed see the logic and the internal consistency of conservatism.
The single author who most deeply influenced my personal philosophy is well-known -- even infamous -- for his conservative views, particularly later in life. I may have reached different conclusions than he did, but I still hold his opinions and his thought processes in the deepest respect.
I think, however, that, were Robert Heinlein still alive, the regime of George Walker Bush would horrify him.
He has, in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hafoc's words, "...betrayed the good conservative principles while throwing all his strength behind the bad ones."
With the outrage and frustration filtered out, what I was really trying to say was, "What are you people thinking??"
On that level, this was not an entirely unsuccessful attempt at communication. Several of you did give some indication of what you've been thinking.
You think, apparently, that George Walker Bush is a "conservative".
Please note that I did not attack the conservative philosophy. I did not claim that one had to be Stupid, Deluded or Corrupt to adhere to conservative ideals. While I disagree with many -- though not all -- conservative positions, while I am in fact far more willing to proudly embrace the label of "Liberal" than any candidate endorsed by the Democratic party in well over a decade, I can indeed see the logic and the internal consistency of conservatism.
The single author who most deeply influenced my personal philosophy is well-known -- even infamous -- for his conservative views, particularly later in life. I may have reached different conclusions than he did, but I still hold his opinions and his thought processes in the deepest respect.
I think, however, that, were Robert Heinlein still alive, the regime of George Walker Bush would horrify him.
He has, in
hafoc's words, "...betrayed the good conservative principles while throwing all his strength behind the bad ones."
no subject
Since when is a blastocyst/embryo's right to continue to feed off of a living sentient woman (because by the time most abortions are performed - six to eight weeks - that's all you've got - no 'fetus', and most certainly no 'baby') more important than a currently living, contributing, feeling, emotional, aware and SENTIENT woman's right to personal autonomy and not to have a parasite that, if she wanted it, she wouldn't be attempting to get rid of it?
And you know what? Having been there... yes, to me, abortion IS murder... if that's what you call being forced to kill in self defense. Some women would really and truly rather die than be forced into a nine month period of bodily slavery, not knowing if the parasite you're incubating is going to be adoptable/whether you can afford the doctor's appointments/whether your health, both physical and mental, will stand up to it - and no guarantee that, if you CAN give it up for adoption, it won't come back in twelve, eighteen, twenty years, asking WHY you didn't want it. And the pro-life folk certainly aren't offering to take all these unwanted ones and pay for their lives, their medical expenses, their schooling, etc...
This is the one case where, unless you've had an actual life experience with UNWANTED pregnancy (not 'unplanned' - unWANTED), the stance of 'pro-life' as an opinion just cuts no mustard and throws no dice with me. I am usually open-minded and willing to listen to other points of view - but not here. Tell me you've had that kind of experience, or that your girlfriend has, and I'll listen to and accept your opinion. Until then, you don't really know what it's like. You might have an idea, a preconception... but you don't KNOW.
I would rather have died.
no subject
As for personal experience, I didn't know them extremely close, but I knew two kids that the following happened to.
They were both 15. The boy was quite pro-life, things got out of hand one evening, the girl ended up pregnant. She was of course very scared, but he got her to try doing an adoption. I'm not clear what happened, but she did end up having an abortion. She kept it hidden for awhile, but eventually I guess one of her 'friends' told the boyfriend about it.
He blew his head off with a shotgun the next day. Some time later, she commited suicide too, though it was never clear if the events were directly related.
That's my closest experience with someone that had an abortion.
And as I said, I believe it is a human being when it has its own DNA, this happens after conception.
Lack of nervous system doesn't mean anything to me. If you chop down a tree, is it any less dead just because it doesn't have a nervous system?
no subject
But with regards to the fact I'm not all 'connected' - I've got a tubal ligation. Sterilization. I'm 'fixed'. And you know how HARD that was to get done? At 24, nobody says 'Are you sure you won't change your mind' if you decide to make the permanent decision to have a child. But at 24 a doctor feels perfectly justified in TELLING someone who wants to make the (possibly reversable) decision never to have children that she's too young and too stupid to know what she wants. It's a procedure that is covered by the NHS here in the UK for the few people the doctors accept as 'mature' enough to make the decision. I wound up having to pay over a thousand dollars (converted) to have it done at a private clinic - but if I'd been pregnant and wanting antenatal care, I'd have had no costs and no problems.
That's still not personal experience, Dracono. That's a secondhand account, and you don't know what was going on 100%. From my third-hand perspective, it sounds like the boy decided he WANTED the baby - and the girl did NOT want the pregnancy. Maybe someone clued the girl in to how difficult adoption processes can be. Maybe her parents found out and took her to the clinic themselves. Maybe she decided she didn't want to be pressured into giving birth to a baby she couldn't support, be pregnant and have to drop out of school, or generally ruin her life. And maybe she didn't want to tell him because she knew him well enough.
And you know what? He made a mistake in killing himself. His decision to kill himself might well have been what made her kill herself. But what would he have done if she'd miscarried?
My problem with your argument, that it's a human being when it's got its own DNA, is that, really, a tapeworm ALSO has its own DNA. Is it acceptable to you for me to worm my cats? It's not an actual human being until it's viable outside of the parasite existence - say, five or six months along? I mean, a tapeworm's alive, too. It's got DNA and a nervous system and everything. What if *I* had a tapeworm? To me, it's just a matter of the type of parasitism.
I never said a blastocyst/embryo doesn't have a nervous system - it's developing. I said a blastocyst/embryo is not sentient and aware. Trees ARE 'aware' in a way I can't quite describe - they're aware when they're being fed upon by another animal and can produce anti-feedant chemicals, for example. And chopping a tree down doesn't necessarily kill it. For that matter, cows and chickens are aware - and I'd say that, in their own way, they're also sentient. Doesn't stop me from eating them.
no subject
no subject
And for that matter, even more pregnancies - maybe as many as one in three - are miscarried before the woman in question even suspects she might be pregnant.
But what makes a human intrinsically 'better' than a tapeworm?
What makes a human better?
Human babies are kyooote and pwecious. Tapeworms aren't. That's what makes them better.
Re: What makes a human better?
Kittens, yes. Baby alligators, yes. Puppies, yeah.
None of them excretes foul-smelling slime from both ends that has to be cleaned up for the better part of their first year unless they're sick.
I'd rather have a tapeworm - at least then, I'm on a biological weight-loss plan *grins*
no subject
That means something to me, maybe I just have a very strong preservation of species urge in me, because it'd be hard as hell to have children myself, thus there is no preservation of my own young urge.
no subject
I'll setup a charity for the sole purpose of paying for the birth/adoption costs for mother's who would otherwise abort.
Of course, getting rich is the hard part.
no subject
Even if there had been money and a charity for it...
I would STILL have made the same decision.
I would rather die than be pregnant and give birth.
I'm not alone.
no subject
My being male is a bit more complicated than my chromosomes (Hint: They aren't what you'd think they are), but I don't really like to discuss that wholly in public.
no subject
Just because I'm female doesn't mean I -want- to have kids. Given the choice, I'd be biologically male (and vasectomized) - but the choice doesn't exist. Given the alternatives, I'm happy to be a sterilized female, able and in control of my own body.
And if I got pregnant now, I'd have no choice BUT to have the pregnancy terminated, because ectopics are life-threatening. And my life is more important to me than the possibility that I might be killing the next Elvis.
And just for the record: I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe everyone has the right to choose what is right for THEM. Nobody has the right to choose what is right for me except me. Nobody has the right to tell you that YOU should be sterilized/have an abortion/give a kid up for adoption/keep a child you don't want. I'm happy to allow pro-life folk the choice of what to do with their own bodies, but I'm not letting them have the choice of what to do with mine.
no subject
no subject
1. Your mom discovers the problem causing your apparent sterility early in pregnancy and chooses to abort and try again - and your soul gets carried to the next body in question.
2. You know what you're going to be born like, that you're never going to get to choose to have kids, and certainly that you're never going to get to carry children as a female.
Some people - maybe not you - would choose to try again instead of getting born into a life they would be unhappy in.
Hell, if I'd gotten to choose my own personal situation, I wouldn't be here in my present form at all. But my parents chose for me. They decided to make me and they decided to give birth to me and name me and really, they made all the choices up until I was about sixteen.
Given an option and a choice, I'd probably trade you bodies.
But even an adult human isn't considered competent to make a decision like THAT. Heck, adult humans aren't considered competent to choose when they themselves want to die.
no subject
However, given that choice yes I would take the latter. That said what causes my issues with being fertile is not detectable during birth, we'd need another 50or so years, maybe more, before my particular type of situation could be detected in the womb.