Re: Abortion - The Platypus Hypothesis

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 18, 2012, 3:53:26 PM3/18/12

to

[Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
___________________________________________

Imagine for a moment that humans were born by being hatched from eggs,
like the platypus. At some point there comes a day when the egg
hatches. The day before, the egg shell is whole and the baby is
unborn. On the day of the hatching, the egg shell is all in pieces
with a human baby free from it. What kind of protections would our
societies provide to the baby free from its shell? There's little
reason to think that it would be any different from those provided
already.

Ok, then what about the day before, when the egg shell is whole? The
life inside is perfectly viable as it is on the day after.

The question then turns to, at what point during this incubation
period would our societies say that it is ok to terminate the
development of life within that egg?

Say that for proper development, the parent is required to carry that
egg the entire time within a pouch kept next to the adult's body for
warmth and other support. Would our societies change their stance on
providing protection for the developing egg because of this,
transferring the decision authority over the egg's development now
because the parent is required to carry the egg around?

Long before it is hatched, the egg contains a sentient entity that is
developing into human life. If terminating its life after it is
hatched cannot be justified, what possible justification could there
be for terminating its life before it is hatched? Does this change at
all if the parent is required to carry the egg in a pouch throughout
its gestation? If the pouch was required and also nutrients? The
baby needs to be provided with nutrients after it is born, and
societies provide protection from it being starved of nutrients to
born babies. Would we also expect societies to protect it so that it
receives nutrients while in its shell carried within the pouch?

How is the situation of actual human gestation within the mother's
womb different from this hypothetical scenario where an egg is laid?
What makes it ok for a mother to terminate her pregnancy?

Back to the eggs, imagine an incubation nursery for dozens upon dozens
that are developing into human life. Now imagine some person, perhaps
the janitor, who is tasked with crushing the life out of all of those
eggs and disposing of the contents. What would we think of a society
that provided legal protection for such an act simply because the
mothers who laid those eggs had consented to the destruction?

=Dustin

Message has been deleted

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 18, 2012, 9:01:46 PM3/18/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
> ___________________________________________
>

> Imagine for a moment ...

Fuck off and stay fucked off, spammer.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 1:36:24 AM3/19/12

to

Yeah, wouldn't want to clutter these abortion-interested groups with
topics like, um, abortion.

Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
might find this cartoon to be more palatable:
http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/

“This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
placental mammals.”

(Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas
that struck me as illuminating to the debate.)

=Dustin

W.T.S.

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 3:39:35 AM3/19/12

to

In article <a09fa0f0-3855-4653-89ba-fafed2ab7f78
@h9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, dustin....@gmail.com says...

> On Mar 18, 8:01 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
> > > ___________________________________________
> >
> > > Imagine for a moment ...
> >
> > Fuck off and stay fucked off, spammer.
>
> Yeah, wouldn't want to clutter these abortion-interested groups with
> topics like, um, abortion.

If you must post/respond, try not to lie so much. It's easy to tell
when a pro-liar is lying (his or her lips move) and someone here will
always call you on it. First rule, tell the truth. Second rule,
abortion is _always_ justified. Keep those in mind and you'll enjoy
your stay here.

>
> Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
> might find this cartoon to be more palatable:

> http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg

>
> “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> placental mammals.”
>
> (Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas
> that struck me as illuminating to the debate.)
>
> =Dustin

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs.
Live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 12:03:29 PM3/19/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > [Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
> > >

> > > Imagine for a moment ...

> > Fuck off and stay fucked off, spammer.

> Yeah, wouldn't want to clutter these abortion-interested groups with
> topics like, um, abortion.

You're cluttering these newsfroups with the same text as your original
post. That's spamming, spammer.

And just to return the favor, your hypothesis and supporting arguments
can be summarized in their entirety in three words:

"Woman? What woman?"

> Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
> might find this cartoon to be more palatable:
>http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
>
> “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> placental mammals.”

We might as well bring up rhinoceros beetles. What is your point?

> (Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas

> that struck me as [not at all relevant] to the debate.)

Fixed it for you. Human beings are neither marsupials or monotremes.
Now, fuck off.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 5:14:43 PM3/19/12

to

On Mar 19, 11:03 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
>
> > > > Imagine for a moment ...
> > > Fuck off and stay fucked off, spammer.
> > Yeah, wouldn't want to clutter these abortion-interested groups with
> > topics like, um, abortion.
>
> You're cluttering these newsfroups with the same text as your original
> post. That's spamming, spammer.

A peek just a few lines up reveals that I was perfectly clear that my
intent was in crossposting to other interested (theoretically)
newsgroups. I'm not here selling anything. I just had a thought that
caused me to go 'hmmm', and I thought that there would be some people
who might appreciate me sharing that. Obviously not everyone. But
perhaps some.

> And just to return the favor, your hypothesis and supporting arguments
> can be summarized in their entirety in three words:
>
> "Woman? What woman?"

The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
*separate* from all considerations due to the woman.

...or the man. Let's not forget about the man's role in all this. In
a society where it is perfectly legal to get an abortion, a man who
impregnates a woman can insist that she gets it aborted. The woman
can choose to have the baby against the reluctant father's
wishes. ...and that very same legal system will force the man to pay
for supporting that child!

Legal consistency would limit the non-consenting father's financial
liability to the cost of the abortion. Scratch that. Fair would be
*half* the cost of the abortion. Instead the man is forced to pay
many many thousands for the next 18 years all because of a decision
that the woman made without his consent.

Why are the laws schizophrenic like this? Because unborn human life
IS actually valued by all societies with such laws. (Up to this
extent, at least.) And they recognize that the man had the ability to
prevent conception of that baby in the first place, and they back his
responsibility up to that point where he chose to fuck the woman
without using contraception.

> > Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
> > might find this cartoon to be more palatable:
> >http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
>
> > “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> > placental mammals.”
>
> We might as well bring up rhinoceros beetles. What is your point?
>
> > (Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas
> > that struck me as [not at all relevant] to the debate.)
>
> Fixed it for you. Human beings are neither marsupials or monotremes.

I agree that human beings are not other species. The scenario is
completely hypothetical. The day when medical technology advances to
the point where a woman can choose to either carry her baby in utero,
or have that baby incubated through an artificial placental system
with no attachment at all to her body ...you are certainly welcome to
wait for that day to reconsider this issue.

> Now, fuck off.

(Seeing as how the issue being discussed here is integrally related to
fucking, your repetitive hostility can be viewed with a sense of
irony.)

=Dustin

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 6:56:39 PM3/19/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > [Crossposting for others who might be interested...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Imagine for a moment ...

> > > > Fuck off and stay fucked off, spammer.
> > > Yeah, wouldn't want to clutter these abortion-interested groups with
> > > topics like, um, abortion.

> > You're cluttering these newsfroups with the same text as your original
> > post. That's spamming, spammer.

> A peek just a few lines up reveals that I was perfectly clear that my
> intent was in crossposting to other interested (theoretically)
> newsgroups. I'm not here selling anything. I just had a thought that
> caused me to go 'hmmm', and I thought that there would be some people
> who might appreciate me sharing that. Obviously not everyone. But
> perhaps some.

In other words, when you didn't get the responses you expected in
talk.abortion, you simply repeated yourself word for word, adding
alt.abortion and two *religious* newsgroups to the subject line.

> > And just to return the favor, your hypothesis and supporting arguments
> > can be summarized in their entirety in three words:
> >
> > "Woman? What woman?"

> The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.

That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
Dustin.

> ...or the man. Let's not forget about the man's role in all this. In
> a society where it is perfectly legal to get an abortion, a man who
> impregnates a woman can insist that she gets it aborted. The woman
> can choose to have the baby against the reluctant father's
> wishes. ...and that very same legal system will force the man to pay
> for supporting that child!

Here we go again, another assertion of equivalence between a woman's
body and a man's wallet.

> Legal consistency would limit the non-consenting father's financial
> liability to the cost of the abortion. Scratch that. Fair would be
> *half* the cost of the abortion. Instead the man is forced to pay
> many many thousands for the next 18 years all because of a decision
> that the woman made without his consent.

You talk as if mothers bear no financial responsibility for their
children and do not pay for their upbringing. I can assure you, they
do. Besides, our society's default assumption is that both biological
parents are legally responsible for the children they beget. The good
news here is that with responsibility comes rights, particularly the
right to be involved with your children. Your proposal has one
drawback - it spits in the face of the many men who want to be
involved with their children, who rely on our society's default
assumption, with its attendant rights and responsibilities. You would
make it harder for these men to assert their parental rights. Why
would you want to do that?

> Why are the laws schizophrenic like this? Because unborn human
> life IS actually valued by all societies with such laws.

BZZZT! No, it's because *children* have rights to support and
nurturance.

> (Up to this extent, at least.) And they recognize that the man had the
> ability to prevent conception of that baby in the first place, and they
> back his responsibility up to that point where he chose to fuck the
> woman without using contraception.

That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

> > > Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
> > > might find this cartoon to be more palatable:
> > >http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
> > >
> > > “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> > > placental mammals.”

Btw, two can play this cartoon game:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files/2012/03/prudebitch.jpg

> > We might as well bring up rhinoceros beetles. What is your point?

> > > (Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas
> > > that struck me as [not at all relevant] to the debate.)

> > Fixed it for you. Human beings are neither marsupials or monotremes.

> I agree that human beings are not other species. The scenario is
> completely hypothetical. The day when medical technology advances
> to the point where a woman can choose to either carry her baby in utero,
> or have that baby incubated through an artificial placental system
> with no attachment at all to her body ...you are certainly welcome to
> wait for that day to reconsider this issue.

That day, if it ever comes, will be well past our expiration dates.
Try to stay focused on the present, that is to say, reality.

> > Now, fuck off.

> (Seeing as how the issue being discussed here is integrally related
> to fucking, your repetitive hostility can be viewed with a sense of
> irony.)

Fucking off is different from fucking, just as throwing up is
different from throwing. Now, fuck off.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 2:12:23 AM3/20/12

to

On Mar 19, 5:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > A peek just a few lines up reveals that I was perfectly clear that my
> > intent was in crossposting to other interested (theoretically)
> > newsgroups. I'm not here selling anything. I just had a thought that
> > caused me to go 'hmmm', and I thought that there would be some people
> > who might appreciate me sharing that. Obviously not everyone. But
> > perhaps some.
>
> In other words, when you didn't get the responses you expected in
> talk.abortion, you simply repeated yourself word for word, adding
> alt.abortion and two *religious* newsgroups to the subject line.

I find the hypothesis to be very interesting. I posted it to groups
who I believed may share that interest.

You do not like my words. But your level of interest is to the point
of feeling compelled to be combative against them.

<snip>

> > The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> > life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> > *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.
>
> That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
> pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
> without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
> Dustin.

For the platypus, it is not.

(It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)

> > ...or the man. Let's not forget about the man's role in all this. In
> > a society where it is perfectly legal to get an abortion, a man who
> > impregnates a woman can insist that she gets it aborted. The woman
> > can choose to have the baby against the reluctant father's
> > wishes. ...and that very same legal system will force the man to pay
> > for supporting that child!
>
> Here we go again, another assertion of equivalence between a woman's
> body and a man's wallet.
>
> > Legal consistency would limit the non-consenting father's financial
> > liability to the cost of the abortion. Scratch that. Fair would be
> > *half* the cost of the abortion. Instead the man is forced to pay
> > many many thousands for the next 18 years all because of a decision
> > that the woman made without his consent.
>
> You talk as if mothers bear no financial responsibility for their
> children and do not pay for their upbringing. I can assure you, they
> do. Besides, our society's default assumption is that both biological
> parents are legally responsible for the children they beget. The good
> news here is that with responsibility comes rights, particularly the
> right to be involved with your children. Your proposal has one
> drawback - it spits in the face of the many men who want to be
> involved with their children, who rely on our society's default
> assumption, with its attendant rights and responsibilities. You would
> make it harder for these men to assert their parental rights. Why
> would you want to do that?

I have no desire to do so. It was not a proposal. I presented the
situation that would have legal consistency, if women had the right to
free choice over their pregnancy, then the financial consequence of
that choice would also be placed upon them.

I was not saying that is a change I want. I actually see the abortion
debate to be a huge waste of energy.

How hard is it for both sides to find common ground? I see the
solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
Hello?!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
Problem solved. It can be done.

The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
as a preferred method of birth control. And that small faction can be
reached with education. There are plenty of ways that are better and
cheaper to stop an unwanted child from being born. This would be
ineffective with a small subgroup, and they could perhaps be given
treatment along the lines of a mental illness.

That's the change that I want to see happen. Abortion - prevent the
issue entirely. We're an intelligent species. This problem can be
solved. This problem can be eradicated completely.

> > Why are the laws schizophrenic like this? Because unborn human
> > life IS actually valued by all societies with such laws.
>
> BZZZT! No, it's because *children* have rights to support and
> nurturance.

I am glad that children are protected by society to the level that
they currently are. I will be even more glad when that level of
protection is *increased*.

> > (Up to this extent, at least.) And they recognize that the man had the
> > ability to prevent conception of that baby in the first place, and they
> > back his responsibility up to that point where he chose to fuck the
> > woman without using contraception.
>
> That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

I don't know the actual reason for the legal inconsistency. What I
offered was my best guess. I'd be glad to consider any alternative
explanation.

> > > > Well, those who have been offended with my presentation on this angle
> > > > might find this cartoon to be more palatable:
> > > >http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
>
> > > > “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> > > > placental mammals.”
>
> Btw, two can play this cartoon game:
>
> http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files/2012/03/prudebitch.jpg

Excellent!

I am a feminist, by the way. I am all for upholding the respect that
is due to women. Where I may differ from many other feminists is that
I also am all for upholding the respect that is due to children. I
extend that to all sentient life. And I go further to extend it to
the entire planet.

Due respect for all.

It's hardly a new concept. But it does seem to be taking thousands of
years to be catching on.

> > > We might as well bring up rhinoceros beetles. What is your point?
> > > > (Clearly there have been others who have considered the same ideas
> > > > that struck me as [not at all relevant] to the debate.)
> > > Fixed it for you. Human beings are neither marsupials or monotremes.
> > I agree that human beings are not other species. The scenario is
> > completely hypothetical. The day when medical technology advances
> > to the point where a woman can choose to either carry her baby in utero,
> > or have that baby incubated through an artificial placental system
> > with no attachment at all to her body ...you are certainly welcome to
> > wait for that day to reconsider this issue.
>
> That day, if it ever comes, will be well past our expiration dates.
> Try to stay focused on the present, that is to say, reality.

I will make the guess that I will live to see that day. But granted,
it is not the reality of today.

> > > Now, fuck off.
> > (Seeing as how the issue being discussed here is integrally related
> > to fucking, your repetitive hostility can be viewed with a sense of
> > irony.)
>
> Fucking off is different from fucking, just as throwing up is
> different from throwing. Now, fuck off.

The issue of abortion has a lot to do with a person's sense of
compassion. I'll just say that if I were to learn that you are a
vegetarian, I will be surprised.

=Dustin

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 4:23:19 PM3/20/12

to

Uh, a woman isn't an eggshell.
So your mother regrets not getting an abortion?
Thought so.

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 4:30:30 PM3/20/12

to

What species are we?

> For the platypus, it is not.

We are not platypussies.

> (It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)

And thus worthless. No relevance to the real world.

Oh, no . ..

> How hard is it for both sides to find common ground?

Very simply, if you don't like abortion don't get one.

> I see the
> solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> Hello?!

Hello, and banning abortion does not end them, only means wealthy
women get safe, expensive abortions, and poor women have children they
don't want or get unsafe abortions. As was most recently seen in
Rumania, this results in really horrible things. Is that what you
want?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
> camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
> Problem solved. It can be done.

It has been done. Get a vasectomy and encourage all men to do so
because it is the cheapest, safest, most effective, and easiest to use
of all methods.

> The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
> as a preferred method of birth control.

And since they don't exist, what is your point?

Wrong.

> I am a feminist, by the way.

Nope.

> I am all for upholding the respect that
> is due to women.

But you think women aren't due the respect they do.

> =Dustin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dino

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 4:42:20 PM3/20/12

to

I bet yours does, which would explain why you constantly have to bring
up mothers. Your mom hated you didn't she? I almost feel sorry for
you now. A lot is coming to light. You were a unwanted child.
Abused? Maybe this explains why you always have to bring up other
people's mothers. You are just projecting. Possibly very jealous. A
lot of hate and bitterness.
You should seek counseling. You have a lot of issues that needs
professional help.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 4:57:24 PM3/20/12

to

Whoever delivers the most scathing insult wins the argument? Usenet
standard, I'm sad to know. Well I've been posting to the internet
since the 90's, and I've yet to post my first insult in spite of the
many hundreds that have been presented to me.

I do not expect to make any progress along this line, because if we
cannot treat each other here with respect, I cannot expect much
respect to be extended toward entities that cannot (yet) speak for
themselves.

As for me being aborted, I obviously had no say in the matter. I'm
glad that my mother didn't. But there are times when saturated with
human cruelty that I do feel like Planet Earth is a failed
experiment. I'm sure, elizabeth, that you're not that nasty to
everyone everywhere at all times. I would guess that you can be very
nice and fun to be around, when you want to be. Because of those
kinds of glimmers of sunshine, I maintain hope for a brighter future
where a debate on abortion would be as outmoded as, say, a debate
about slavery is today. No one here owns any slaves. No one even
thinks about getting one.

That future will be one where all unwanted pregnancies will be
absolutely avoided. We will have a much more advanced approach to
fertility with products like Norplant. Girls will have this taken
care of before they mature, and only those people who *want* to have
children will have this biological feature activated. That future
when fully realized could have both boys and girls using some kind of
method to (reversibly) deactivate their fertility.

There would be those, because of religious convictions or whatever,
who would oppose having this done. It would not be a mandatory
procedure, but in order to opt out, it would put you into a category
with separate consequences if you then got pregnant and didn't want
your baby.

I'm just thinking out loud here. There are many smart people who have
invested a lot more effort toward solving this. I know this problem
can be resolved in a wide sense throughout our societies.

=Dustin

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 9:32:50 PM3/20/12

to

In article
<79d382c5-c9b9-4d82...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:

[...]

> I bet yours does, which would explain why you constantly have to bring
> up mothers. Your mom hated you didn't she? I almost feel sorry for
> you now. A lot is coming to light. You were a unwanted child.
> Abused? Maybe this explains why you always have to bring up other
> people's mothers. You are just projecting. Possibly very jealous. A
> lot of hate and bitterness.
> You should seek counseling. You have a lot of issues that needs
> professional help.

osprey projecting.

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 20, 2012, 11:45:34 PM3/20/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

[--lots deleted--]

> > > The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> > > life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> > > *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.

> > That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
> > pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
> > without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
> > Dustin.

> For the platypus, it is not.

Nobody's arguing for or against abortion rights for platypuses.

> (It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)

Another name for a hypothetical that lacks relevance is "wankage".

[...]

> I was not saying that is a change I want. I actually see the abortion
> debate to be a huge waste of energy.
>
> How hard is it for both sides to find common ground? I see the
> solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> Hello?!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
> camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
> Problem solved. It can be done.
>
> The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
> as a preferred method of birth control. And that small faction can be
> reached with education. There are plenty of ways that are better and
> cheaper to stop an unwanted child from being born. This would be
> ineffective with a small subgroup, and they could perhaps be given
> treatment along the lines of a mental illness.
>
> That's the change that I want to see happen. Abortion - prevent the
> issue entirely. We're an intelligent species. This problem can be
> solved. This problem can be eradicated completely.

*Sigh*. That would be nice, wouldn't it? It will never happen. Even
if pro-choicers (like me) could muster enough civility to not be mean
to poor, put-upon anti-choicers, there will never be a Grand Bargain
between the two sides. It will never happen because the anti-choice
movement is fueled with lies and it does not bargain (or argue) in
good faith.

As we mean old pro-choicers have tried to explain for years, the anti-
choice movement (not all anti-choicers, but the movement) is anti-
female-autonomy, anti-unapproved-by-them-sex, and, yes, anti-birth-
control. The most compelling evidence of this is all the anti-choice
legislation that has cascaded out of the Republican-controlled House
of Representatives and various state legislatures these past couple of
years. I would hope that is obvious to even the most politically-
unengaged citizen that the anti-choice movement is against even
commonsense policies to reduce the need for abortion, like funding
birth control or prenatal care or comprehensive sex education.

The idea that the two sides can agree that reducing abortion is a good
thing and so we should find common ground is a delusion, a mirage.
But still, we stupid, mean pro-choicers sure are crazy for suggesting
that! Almost as crazy as when we said the Iraq war was a dumb idea!
And it's all our fault... for being so mean!

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 7:48:59 PM3/21/12

to

Just kill yourself, Heishman.

> I bet yours does, which would explain why you constantly have to bring
> up mothers. Your mom hated you didn't she?

Nope. But it's clear yours did.

> I almost feel sorry for
> you now.

No one feels sorry for you and everyone who knows you wishes your
mother should have swallowed.

> A lot is coming to light. You were a unwanted child.

Nope.

> Abused?

Nope.

> Maybe this explains why you always have to bring up other
> people's mothers. You are just projecting. Possibly very jealous. A
> lot of hate and bitterness.

And that would be you projecting your misery on me.
Which is why killing yourself is the best course of action for you.

> You should seek counseling. You have a lot of issues that needs

> professional help.- Hide quoted text -

Well, perhaps if you find a professional to help you, that
professional will tell you to work on your own issues first.

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 7:52:31 PM3/21/12

to

Oh, my . ..

> Whoever delivers the most scathing insult wins the argument?

What argument? You came in and posted bollocks, you got your ass
handed to you.
Try introducing this argument in a logic 101 class, I'm sure the
teacher could use the laugh.

> Usenet
> standard, I'm sad to know. Well I've been posting to the internet
> since the 90's, and I've yet to post my first insult in spite of the
> many hundreds that have been presented to me.

So you say. Sure hope all your posts aren't as looney as this one.

> I do not expect to make any progress along this line, because if we
> cannot treat each other here with respect, I cannot expect much
> respect to be extended toward entities that cannot (yet) speak for
> themselves.

Like I say, take it to class, take it to a soapbox, the thing is, in
usenet you can't hear your audience laughing at you.

> As for me being aborted, I obviously had no say in the matter. I'm
> glad that my mother didn't. But there are times when saturated with
> human cruelty that I do feel like Planet Earth is a failed
> experiment. I'm sure, elizabeth, that you're not that nasty to
> everyone everywhere at all times.

Actually, I can be far meaner in person, but only if you say something
daft. As in here.

> I would guess that you can be very
> nice and fun to be around, when you want to be.

I hate stupid, so not aroung you, to be sure.

> Because of those
> kinds of glimmers of sunshine, I maintain hope for a brighter future
> where a debate on abortion would be as outmoded as, say, a debate
> about slavery is today. No one here owns any slaves. No one even
> thinks about getting one.

The debate on abortion was over decades ago. The fact that
misogynists won't give it up is not my problem.

> That future will be one where all unwanted pregnancies will be
> absolutely avoided.

Have men get vasectomies. Problem solved.

>We will have a much more advanced approach to
> fertility with products like Norplant. Girls will have this taken
> care of before they mature, and only those people who *want* to have
> children will have this biological feature activated. That future
> when fully realized could have both boys and girls using some kind of
> method to (reversibly) deactivate their fertility.
>
> There would be those, because of religious convictions or whatever,
> who would oppose having this done. It would not be a mandatory
> procedure, but in order to opt out, it would put you into a category
> with separate consequences if you then got pregnant and didn't want
> your baby.
>
> I'm just thinking out loud here. There are many smart people who have
> invested a lot more effort toward solving this. I know this problem
> can be resolved in a wide sense throughout our societies.
>

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 2:12:13 PM3/22/12

to

On Mar 20, 3:30 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 11:12 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 19, 5:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> > > > life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> > > > *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.
>
> > > That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
> > > pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
> > > without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
> > > Dustin.
>
> What species are we?
>
> > For the platypus, it is not.
>
> We are not platypussies.
>
> > (It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)
>
> And thus worthless. No relevance to the real world.

The point of the hypothesis was to illustrate how worthlessly the
unborn human is currently treated. I'd call that relevant.

<snip>

> > I was not saying that is a change I want. I actually see the abortion
> > debate to be a huge waste of energy.
>
> Oh, no . ..
>
> > How hard is it for both sides to find common ground?
>
> Very simply, if you don't like abortion don't get one.

The question at hand is...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if it is the unborn baby that doesn't like abortion?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not so simple to anyone who asks that question.

> > I see the
> > solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> > abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> > Hello?!
>
> Hello, and banning abortion does not end them, only means wealthy
> women get safe, expensive abortions, and poor women have children they
> don't want or get unsafe abortions. As was most recently seen in
> Rumania, this results in really horrible things. Is that what you
> want?

No. Not at all. I was very clear in what I want. I want the issue
to be prevented altogether. This can be solved in Romania just as
well as it can be solved in other parts of the world.

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
> > camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
> > Problem solved. It can be done.
>
> It has been done. Get a vasectomy and encourage all men to do so
> because it is the cheapest, safest, most effective, and easiest to use
> of all methods.

The solution I was pointing toward was a society where *both* boys as
well as girls had their contributions toward pregnancy curtailed.

> > The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
> > as a preferred method of birth control.
>
> And since they don't exist, what is your point?

I had shared that I grew up with a female who used abortion as her
preferred method of birth control. She later attempted suicide on
multiple occasions, even after she birthed a live child. I also went
to high school with a female who aborted a pregnancy, and then later
was never able to conceive a child. She looks back on that decision
when she was a teen as a regrettably huge mistake.

(I'm not quite sure if she sees the abortion as the mistake, or having
gotten pregnant as the mistake. Probably both.)

<snip>

> > > > > >http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
>
> > > > > > “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> > > > > > placental mammals.”
>
> > > Btw, two can play this cartoon game:
>
> > >http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files/2012/03/prudebitch.jpg
>
> > Excellent!
>
> Wrong.
>
> > I am a feminist, by the way.
>
> Nope.
>
> > I am all for upholding the respect that
> > is due to women.
>
> But you think women aren't due the respect they do.

If the women's movement felt that their liberation included their
entitlement to own slaves, that would be one more area where my
version of feminism would be different from theirs. (Hypothetical
here once again. Emphasis on 'if'.)

<snip>

=Dustin

Lying about people is not a respectful tactic and is typical of the
pro-liar who cannot tell the truth.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 2:30:35 AM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 10:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> >...or look at this another way...
>
> >Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> >announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> >as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> >we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> >your life by the end of today."
>
> >See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>
> Another pro-liar is trying to equate freedom from enslavement with
> the right to murder.

That was not equating abortion to murder. It was an illustration of
the limits within those in the pro-choice camp. This is hardly a
controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:02:11 AM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 10:47 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> Tghis will be amusing.
>
> >The most comprehensive pro-choice approach to unwanted pregnancy would
> >be to have a crystal ball that peered into an alternative future where
> >the child was carried to term, grew up, understood what life was and
> >what non-existence was... and then *ask that child*, "How do you feel
> >about this decision?"
>
> But of course that is a silly fantasy with no basis in reality.
>
> >THAT is the most pro-choice stance
>
> Too bad that it's an impossibility and a fiction.
> It also depends upon a decidedly anti-women presumption:
> That the wishes of a fetus should override the rights of a woman.

I have never stated anywhere, nor even so much as implied, that the
wishes of a fetus should override those of the woman.

What I have presented here repeatedly is the view of the fetus being
given due respect. Killing it off without considering its own
interests falls short of that.

> Using your nonsense one could just as validly argue that rape should
> be legal since allowing women to refuse sex would terminate the life
> of a possible future person.

I have yet to address my position on the rape situation.

But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill. It is
the way, in such a case, to avoid the abortion question by preventing
the pregnancy. A fertilized egg that never impregnates cannot be
aborted. It leaves the woman's system the way many fertilized eggs do
naturally (with no pill taken). No sentient life developed. No
sentient life killed.

Now if a woman gets raped and then allows her self to get pregnant,
she is responsible for her part in arriving at her condition. She
then ends up in a situation where the new life entity is worthy of due
consideration.

No child, as a result of rape or as a result of loving committed
marriage - no child asks to be brought into the world. As far as I
can tell. Their interests while unborn can at best be inferred from
what we observe from past pregnancies brought to term -which we all
were ourselves at one point- as well as our observations of past
pregnancies that were killed off.

It requires *empathy*. It requires one to project themselves into the
existence of that unborn life form and imagine what we would want if
we were in that condition. Dealing with unwanted pregnancy is perhaps
the ultimate application of the Golden Rule.

That life form if brought to term will always have the option of
ending its own existence. Every single day of our lives, whether we
choose to be aware of it or not, we have the option to end our own
lives. There is a huge difference between choosing to end our own
life, versus having our life cut short by the choice of someone else
without regard to our own will regarding their decision.

An enlightened choice of a mother to abort her pregnancy will involve
deep examination of these aspects. It will examine what the father
wants, what society wants, what the life growing inside her wants.
Far more than just what she might want for herself in a vacuum that is
void of these other considerations.

(I probably could have chosen my words with more care in that last
statement.)

> >- when the lives of *all* who are
> >affected by the decision are given due consideration.
>
> But that IS the case. There is no future life. It's a fiction.

That path only becomes a fiction after it's life is terminated. The
same is true for your own life one year from now. If you were to die
this summer for whatever reason, that would-have-been future of you in
2013 is a fiction.

> >In this light, anti-abortion can be seen as more pro-choice than those
>
> Lying about people is not a respectful tactic and is typical of the
> pro-liar who cannot tell the truth.

I present a perspective. You dismiss it as a lie. If anyone reading
my words cannot see the sincerity behind them, I have no need to
convince them any further of it. Everyone is free to reject anything
I've offered on whatever basis they feel to be appropriate.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:17:01 AM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 21, 6:52 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Actually, I can be far meaner in person, but only if you say something
> >> daft. As in here.
>
> >It's clear you take pride in the level of nastiness you choose.
>
> You accuse people who are pro-choice of being liar in favor of the
> right to commit murder.
>
> Look to your own nastiness, asshole.

I have not accused anyone of lying. Nor have I posted about a belief,
of mine or from anyone else, that abortion is murder.

I strive to be kind in all my communication. Kindness is the quality
that springs forth from an understanding that we are kind'red
spirits. All of us. Separate in appearance, yet same at the core of
our essence. I never understood John Lennon's Walrus statement when I
was a young kid. I came to understand the wisdom of that many years
later.

"I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together."

Respect is very similar in concept to kindness. Both words are
compact encapsulations of the idea behind the Golden Rule. There's a
scale of consciousness to all entities: A human, an animal, a plant,
a rock. Each level worthy of its own due respect. Perhaps the
fundamental disagreement here can be boiled down to this:

An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.

=Dustin

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 4:58:31 AM3/23/12

to

In article
<aa1561d2-4608-47ff...@hv2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

> An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
> it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.

an "unborn child" is a misleading, emotion-filled paradox particularly
unsuitable for the abortion debate. those who use it do so as a defense
against the illogic of their position.

their problem, and yours apparently, is that you are opposed to
abortion, which is ok since no one is forcing you to have one and you
want to force others to accept your position.

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:18:33 AM3/23/12

to

In article
<781af192-0ae3-4ccf...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> ...or look at this another way...
>
> Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> your life by the end of today."
>
> See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.

ok. analogies aren't your strong point.

would you like to offer another?

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:19:36 AM3/23/12

to

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>That was not equating abortion to murder. It was an illustration of
>the limits within those in the pro-choice camp. This is hardly a
>controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
>that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.

So do you also then advocate banning all wars? How do you intend to
do that?

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:23:01 AM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have yet to address my position on the rape situation.
>
>But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
>to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
>but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
>morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill. It is
>the way, in such a case, to avoid the abortion question by preventing
>the pregnancy. A fertilized egg that never impregnates cannot be
>aborted. It leaves the woman's system the way many fertilized eggs do
>naturally (with no pill taken). No sentient life developed. No
>sentient life killed.

Wow your morals are so easily swayed by a few words. Just because in
one method the life is ended by a more unnatural method you object to
it, yet if it at least looks natural you accept it.

Do you then accept chemical abortion which produces a miscarriage
because it is like a natural miscarriage? If not then you are a
hypocrite for your stance above.

W.T.S.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:25:29 AM3/23/12

to

In article <aa1561d2-4608-47ff-af8b-
372fee...@hv2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, dustin....@gmail.com
says...

No, it's not. It's just fetus filth. It needs to be aborted. Life
only begins at birth. Abortion, at any stage, is beautiful.
Take your totally nonsense arguments elsewhere. They're nothing but
forced-birther nonsense. Abortion is the only right choice for any
women.
>
> =Dustin

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs.
Live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg

Message has been deleted

W.T.S.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 12:59:51 PM3/23/12

to

In article <9p3pm7hlirgs27om6...@4ax.com>,
Dontb...@netportusa.com says...

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
> >to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
> >but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
> >morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill. It is
> >the way, in such a case, to avoid the abortion question by preventing
> >the pregnancy. A fertilized egg that never impregnates cannot be
> >aborted. It leaves the woman's system the way many fertilized eggs do
> >naturally (with no pill taken). No sentient life developed. No
> >sentient life killed.
> >

Are you, or are you not, aware that the pro-liar, anti-choice, forced-
birthers are violently against the morning after pill??? Catholic
hospitals are forbidden to give the morning after pill to rape victims,
or even to mention that one is available or where it can be obtained
from. Guess why!
If you have any rational input to this debate, you really must make
yourself informed of _all_ the facts!!!

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:07:51 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 4:19 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >That was not equating abortion to murder. It was an illustration of
> >the limits within those in the pro-choice camp. This is hardly a
> >controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
> >that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>
> So do you also then advocate banning all wars? How do you intend to
> do that?

Legislation is inherently oppressive. There is very little that I
advocate attempting a cure by banning.

The solution to war can be found along a similar path to the solution
to abortion. Elevate human consciousness to the point where people
will exercise free choice in the healthiest of ways.

I'm going to take a guess that you do not own a slave. Is the reason
you don't own a slave because there is a law on the books that will
punish you if you do? I'm going to take a wild guess that the reason
you don't is because you simply don't want one. You understand how
dehumanizing the concept is. You understand how our entire society is
repulsed by that concept.

Now there was a time, not all that long ago, when slavery was seen as
*a necessity*. Well our society advanced. We learned to enslave
machines to do our labor instead of enslaving people. This solution
is so liberating that we no longer even see those machines as
replacing human slaves. But technologies like the cotton gin helped
to liberate Negro slaves. Technologies like the washing machine
helped to liberate female slaves. Machines do our work and slavery
today is a non-issue.

For sexual reproduction, the human species has advanced
technologically as well. The pill has been as liberating to women as
the washing machine has. We know how to give men vasectomies. We
know how to reverse those. Condoms continue to get thinner. And
girls can get solutions like Norplant. We are past the cusp of
achieving technological solutions to avoid the abortion issue
altogether. What is currently lagging behind is our attitudes toward
those solution. Once we get past that, abortion will retreat toward
the realm of being banished to a non-issue.

And it won't be the laws that will make that happen. It will be a
general consciousness that will attain awareness of our choices, the
general structure of society that will make those options economically
available, and an overriding respect for human life, even when the
stage of that life has not yet developed into being fully human.

So how close are we as a species to having war become a non-issue?
The hippie mantra is 'Make Love Not War'. Well that is a recipe for
disaster. War is not done because people enjoy war. War happens
because it is a crude solution to the fundamental problem of
conflict. And whenever two or more people who have free will
interact, there will always be conflict that results. It is
impossible to have total unity of mind. Nor is that desirable.

Conflict is a given. War is not. While war is a solution that will
resolve the conflict, there are far less damaging ways toward that
end. The problem with 'make love' is that fucking does nothing to
resolve the conflict. Post-coitus, the original conflict remains.
'Make love' is a distraction, not a solution. No strategy of avoiding
conflict will resolve that conflict. It merely pushes the resolution
down the timeline.

How is humanity to solve the problem of war? The solution has been
known for thousands of years. It is called non-violent conflict
resolution. Consider the current rash of wars rooted in religious
differences. Consider all the soldiers who claim to be Christians in
such intense violence. WWJD? Can any of those "Christian" soldiers
actually picture Jesus of Nazareth, if he were here today, enlist and
then train to hone his sharpshooting skills? Obviously we cannot know
with certainty. What we can do is study the teachings that have been
handed down.

I've studied it. And I'm not aware of a single person he killed. He
and his people were horribly oppressed by legions of Roman warriors,
yet we are given no record of him taking up arms to kill a single one
of them. The stories we are given include stuff like him healing the
ear that got sliced off a Roman soldier.

And Jesus O'Nazareth was far from the first, nor the last, to teach
non-violence. Look at what Siddhartha taught many centuries before
Jesus. There are those who believe that Jesus learned his path from
those who followed Buddha.

This is the way shown by Gandhi and MLK. In more recent time, people
like Aquino and perhaps the most powerful image being the Tiananmen
Square 'Tank Man'. Go to the Pentagon and ask the generals how can
one man carrying a briefcase get an entire column of tanks to stop
dead in their tracks. They will be baffled. They will focus their
entire study on what clever weaponry could be fit into the briefcase.

What they are missing is the power of the human heart. Compassion
that is within every single human being. And many animals too. The
power of the Tank Man was in the very fact that his briefcase was
*not* a weapon. He was not threatening. His briefcase was not
threatening. Yet he was willing to die for his need to have the
oppression stopped.

MLK was willing. Gandhi. Jesus. Aquino. All of them were willing
to lay their lives on the line as ultimate proof of their commitment.
This is the way that wars will transform into non-issues with the
sufficient evolution of humanity. It will not be any law that says
'war is wrong'. It will be us - you and me collectively - making our
assertion that we refuse to kill, but we are willing to die for the
goal of the oppression being ended.

The United Nations was a huge step toward finding alternative
resolutions to armed conflict. JFK went so far as to advocate that
all countries dismantle their armies, navies and air forces. When all
nations are committed to not starting any war, then the need to
maintain forces to repel invasion goes away. What JFK proposed to the
UN General Assembly was a collective UN Peace Force, replacing
nationalized troops. Notice how the need for numbers comes down very
steeply through such an approach.

Well here we are 50 years later. The volume of war has come way down
since the 20th century. That is a hopeful sign of progress. But the
intensity has gone up. The progress of technology applied to war has
made killing more effective.

Where technology has provided solutions to the problems of slavery and
unwanted pregnancy, in the realm of war humanity has had everything it
needed technology-wise since the time of Siddhartha. The missing
element was the level of human consciousness being sufficiently
raised.

I am glad to know that we are nearing that key threshold. A critical
mass is coming on board with the path of non-violence.

Do you want a measure of exactly how close we are? Simple. Just look
at what people choose to eat. Look at all the people who relish the
eating of meat. If we fail to have compassion for animals, we cannot
achieve full compassion toward each other.

Now imagine a society where children are raised to treat all animals
with kindness. They choose to get their nourishment from consuming
non-sentient life. When they have inevitable conflict with their
siblings or classmates, they are taught non-violent alternatives
instead of hitting them and overpowering them. Throughout their life,
respect is modeled for them.

This generation will grow into becoming adults. They will grow into
becoming our leaders.

Can we imagine that they will sign up to becoming soldiers? How could
they not take the very same skills of respect and kindness that they
learned under their own roofs and implement them on a global scale? I
imagine that many of them *will* choose to put on a uniform and ship
off to foreign lands. It will be the uniform of a Global Peace Core -
a core of people who care so much about harmonious resolution to
conflict that they are willing to lay down their very lives toward
that end. And once this example spreads to that extent, it will set
the example for citizens within their own neighborhoods to care to
that level. It will set the model for resolving all conflict, whether
between nations on our one planet or between spouses under one roof.

No banning required. Non-violent conflict resolution will happen as
our enlightened free choice.

It is that collective choice, and not legislation, that will banish
war to human history. No longer will nations be torn apart
violently. No longer will families be torn apart violently.

Humanity in the year of 2012, and whatever anniversary of Siddhartha's
birthday it may be, in this year we are at the cusp of that turning
point. Our great great grandchildren will be in school and someone
will have to teach them what war was. They will be horrified. They
will wonder why we didn't get there sooner.

And that's ok. All in due time. Great teachers have taught that we
are made of dust, and to dust we'll return. Kansas as well as Ted
Theodore Logan have expressed this truth. What's up to us is what we
do with our time between those two states of ash. As it's been said,
tombstones are marked with one year, a dash, and then another year.
Everything we do throughout our entire lives is contained within that
dash. We all have the ability within that frame of time to do our
part toward helping humanity achieve these realizations where the
biggest of our problems get moved off the board to the left. Left to
our history.

...and once that is achieved, imagine what our future will be like.

Well people do imagine. There are many science fiction stories that
present humanity extending our warring ways out into space. There is
a fundamental oversight in all such stories. Any species that does
not figure out the problem of war down on the surface of their planet
will surely exterminate themselves before evolving to the point of
venturing significantly beyond it.

What about aliens? Maybe they do exist. Maybe they have visited.
But I would expect any such entities would look at us and conclude
that humans must learn to walk before we could 'play ball' with them.

Right now we are still crawling. And that too is ok. It is a
necessary stage. The question is when will we pick ourselves up and
realize that walking is a much more effective way to get around in
this life.

I see humanity to be strong enough right now. The only thing
preventing us is our own limiting thought that if we try to walk, we
will fall. Yes, maybe we will fall. And that might be a bit
painful. But we can get right back up and start walking again. We
know how to walk. We've been presented with examples for many ages.
We have the strength. All we need now is the will.

The left foot must coordinate with the right foot. If the right
chooses to chop off the left, our only hope will be to hop at best.
But after we figure out how to view our differences as a strength, we
will quickly learn that not only can walking be easily accomplished -
we will learn that running is not only possible, it can be a lot of
fun.

Left-right, male-female, black-white, old-young, thisReligion-
thatReligion. Conflict will be seen as a beautiful thing that gives
us the opportunity for harmonious resolution. As that classic song
goes, just put one foot in front of the other.

Right now we are stuck in the mode of each foot trying its hardest to
step on the other. After we've gotten used to walking, running,
skipping and jumping, we will look back and see how silly we have
been. We will shed a small tear, wipe it away ...and then get back to
living in abundance.

=Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:35:22 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm going to take a guess that you do not own a slave.

No I don't.

>Is the reason you don't own a slave because there is a law on the books that will
>punish you if you do?

Such laws do not currently stop people owning slaves or abusing them.

>I'm going to take a wild guess that the reason you don't is because you simply don't want one.

In all honesty I cannot say that is a reason, not having had one I
have no idea if I would want one or not. My reason is that I have
never had the opportunity to own one and would certainly never accept
forced slavery because of MY moral viewpoint. I also know that my
view is not held by everybody.

>You understand how dehumanizing the concept is.

No. For I have studied and know that for some they preferred slavery
for the protection it gave them over the life they would have had
otherwise. Very much why some people now are willing to risk living
as illegal's to try and provide something better for their families.

>You understand how our entire society is repulsed by that concept.

But it is not. Else we would never see people being prosecuted for
slave trading, for keeping people as slaves, or abusing them.

I do not know about you, but I know that Society contains the very
best to the very worst. Which is why we reach a consensus for laws.
We decide on a set of rules that will hopefully allow people to exist
in the society without causing to much conflict.

Such as with abortion. Clearly there are those who oppose it, which
is why you will never reach a consensus to enable a law to force
people to have abortions. However, in return, whilst many support
abortion, you will not force people to ban it entirely.

Also even if it was banned, the reality is that it will still occur in
any society, that is shown by looking at the real world where people
still risk their lives for it.

So it does not really matter what I personally feel or think on
morals, I am adult enough to realise that I live within a society that
requires certain rules to co-exist. I may try to change some of those
rules if I disagree with them. But I would not force anybody to
change their views or demand they accept my morals as more important.

So why do you feel yours are more important?

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 4:55:10 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 2:35 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

I have neither stated nor implied that my views are more important
than anyone elses. I have done nothing to, nor stated any desire to
have my views imposed on anyone else. What I've repeated here is that
I offer my words for whatever they may be worth to anyone.

And when I speak of society having changed, I do not say that meaning
the entire world. There are many societies. The society I live in
has absolutely no slavery. I've never seen it. The vast majority
have lived their entire lives without ever thinking of getting
personally involved with it. It is a non-issue. It has been
relegated to history.

Of course this is not true for each and every society across our
planet. But this has become our norm. We do not have to stretch our
imagination all that far to envision a future norm for our society
where unwanted pregnancies are avoided altogether.

And again, I'm not pointing to a society where abortion is banned,
with a threat of punishment looming over anyone who does it. The
combination of education, technology, and enlightened choice is
sufficient.

=Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:06:53 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> So why do you feel yours are more important?
>
>I have neither stated nor implied that my views are more important
>than anyone elses. I have done nothing to, nor stated any desire to
>have my views imposed on anyone else. What I've repeated here is that
>I offer my words for whatever they may be worth to anyone.
>
>And when I speak of society having changed, I do not say that meaning
>the entire world. There are many societies. The society I live in
>has absolutely no slavery. I've never seen it. The vast majority
>have lived their entire lives without ever thinking of getting
>personally involved with it. It is a non-issue. It has been
>relegated to history.
>
>Of course this is not true for each and every society across our
>planet. But this has become our norm. We do not have to stretch our
>imagination all that far to envision a future norm for our society
>where unwanted pregnancies are avoided altogether.
>
>And again, I'm not pointing to a society where abortion is banned,
>with a threat of punishment looming over anyone who does it. The
>combination of education, technology, and enlightened choice is
>sufficient.

Hypocrite.

"I have neither stated nor implied that my views are more important"

"And again, I'm not pointing to a society where abortion is banned,
with a threat of punishment looming over anyone who does it. The
combination of education, technology, and enlightened choice is
sufficient"

Clearly you think your version of "enlightened choice" is more moral
than others and that if people agree with your "enlightened choice"
then they would not choose abortion.

Clearly my words were wasted on you as you cannot get beyond your own
moral standards and accept that others will have different standards
to you.

Ray Fischer

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:19:46 PM3/23/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 10:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>>
>> >...or look at this another way...
>>
>> >Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
>> >announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
>> >as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
>> >we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
>> >your life by the end of today."
>>
>> >See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>>
>> Another pro-liar is trying to equate freedom from enslavement with
>> the right to murder.
>
>That was not equating abortion to murder.

I didn't say that it was.

> It was an illustration of
>the limits within those in the pro-choice camp.

It was an absurd argument based upon nonsense.

> Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
>that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.

Using your logic I would be justified in describing you as a murderer
because you have killed, by your refusal to procreate, future children
that you might have had.

Your "argument" depends upon a fantasy with no basis in reality.
It is daft nonsense. "Bullshit" in more succinct terminology.

Ray Fischer

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:23:19 PM3/23/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 10:47 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>>
>> Tghis will be amusing.
>>
>> >The most comprehensive pro-choice approach to unwanted pregnancy would
>> >be to have a crystal ball that peered into an alternative future where
>> >the child was carried to term, grew up, understood what life was and
>> >what non-existence was... and then *ask that child*, "How do you feel
>> >about this decision?"
>>
>> But of course that is a silly fantasy with no basis in reality.
>>
>> >THAT is the most pro-choice stance
>>
>> Too bad that it's an impossibility and a fiction.
>> It also depends upon a decidedly anti-women presumption:
>> That the wishes of a fetus should override the rights of a woman.
>
>I have never stated anywhere, nor even so much as implied, that the
>wishes of a fetus should override those of the woman.

Then your essay is not only based upon an impossible fantasy, it is
also completely pointless.

Wankerage, in other words.

>What I have presented here repeatedly is the view of the fetus being
>given due respect.

A VIEW WHICH DOES NOT EXIST!

> Killing it off without considering its own
>interests falls short of that.

IT HAS NO INTERESTS!

You might as well argue that the wishes of sperm should be considered
before either abstaining from sex or using contraception.

>> Using your nonsense one could just as validly argue that rape should
>> be legal since allowing women to refuse sex would terminate the life
>> of a possible future person.
>
>I have yet to address my position on the rape situation.

Gesundheit.

>But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
>to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
>but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
>morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill.

Without considering the wishes of the zygote?

Ray Fischer

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:25:26 PM3/23/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 21, 6:52 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Actually, I can be far meaner in person, but only if you say something
>> >> daft. As in here.
>>
>> >It's clear you take pride in the level of nastiness you choose.
>>
>> You accuse people who are pro-choice of being liar in favor of the
>> right to commit murder.
>>
>> Look to your own nastiness, asshole.
>
>I have not accused anyone of lying.

You do when you say that people who say they are pro-choice are not
really pro-choice because they don't give due regard to your absurd
fantasies.

>I strive to be kind in all my communication.

You betray your own prejudices.

> Kindness is the quality
>that springs forth from an understanding that we are kind'red

Talk is cheap.

...

>An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
>it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.

Just like a sperm cell?

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:50:10 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <781af192-0ae3-4ccf-a8e0-136ca6e08...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> > ...or look at this another way...
>
> > Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> > announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> > as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> > we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> > your life by the end of today."
>
> > See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>
> ok. analogies aren't your strong point.
>
> would you like to offer another?

The meaning behind analogies and parables and such can only be useful
if the reader is open to accepting the meaning offered.

I happen to see myself as open to the points of view on both sides of
this argument. We could turn this around. If anyone would like to
offer an analogy that helps shed light on why abortion is such an
excellent option, I'd be very eager to see that.

Anyone who is unwilling to change is unwilling to grow. It is very
popular these days to criticize change as a 'flip flop'. It's clear
to me this is a deficient grasp. Changing one's opinion is a 'flip',
and can very well be an indicator of growth. But a flip *flop* is
when a position is changed, and then changed back to the original
position. This too could also be an indicator of growth, but for me
requires a much more thorough explanation than just a 'flip' before
I'd be convinced it is growth.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:05:01 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 4:23 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I have yet to address my position on the rape situation.
>
> >But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
> >to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
> >but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
> >morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill. It is
> >the way, in such a case, to avoid the abortion question by preventing
> >the pregnancy. A fertilized egg that never impregnates cannot be
> >aborted. It leaves the woman's system the way many fertilized eggs do
> >naturally (with no pill taken). No sentient life developed. No
> >sentient life killed.
>
> Wow your morals are so easily swayed by a few words. Just because in
> one method the life is ended by a more unnatural method you object to
> it, yet if it at least looks natural you accept it.
>
> Do you then accept chemical abortion which produces a miscarriage
> because it is like a natural miscarriage? If not then you are a
> hypocrite for your stance above.

The topic I was discussing was *rape*. That is severely different
from the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies where the female was a
willful participant in the act, with plenty of time to plan on how to
avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

As for what types of abortion I accept, I accept them all.

Perhaps you meant to ask me what types I support or encourage. To
date on this forum, I have voiced support for a grand total of zero
types of abortion.

Thinking out loud here... Maybe abortion should be made legal
everywhere. The catch would be that the only approved type of
abortion would be partial-birth abortion. "You want an abortion,
maam? Come see us in 8 months."

Right at this moment, having put that out there and having thought it
over for about a minute, I can see a possibility of me getting behind
a policy like that. All Abortions Will Be Partial Birth Abortions.

I wonder how humanity rose above our stage of being cannibals.
Someone at some point must have said, "I don't think we need to be
doing this anymore." It wasn't just "We can stop for now. I'm full."

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:17:11 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 6:25 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <aa1561d2-4608-47ff-af8b-
> 372fee921...@hv2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com

> says...> On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
> > it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.
>
> No, it's not. It's just fetus filth. It needs to be aborted. Life
> only begins at birth. Abortion, at any stage, is beautiful.
> Take your totally nonsense arguments elsewhere. They're nothing but
> forced-birther nonsense. Abortion is the only right choice for any
> women.

I don't recall anywhere voicing a view that I want anyone forced to
have a child against their will.

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:24:58 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 11:12 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:30 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 11:12 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Mar 19, 5:56 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> > > > > life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> > > > > *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.
>
> > > > That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
> > > > pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
> > > > without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
> > > > Dustin.
>
> > What species are we?
>
> > > For the platypus, it is not.
>
> > We are not platypussies.
>
> > > (It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)

Just don't get it, or won't get it?

> > And thus worthless. No relevance to the real world.
>
> The point of the hypothesis was to illustrate how worthlessly the
> unborn human is currently treated. I'd call that relevant.

That is your original error. Why do you say that the embryonic humans
are treated as worthless>?
That indicates YOUR bias.

> <snip>
>
> > > I was not saying that is a change I want. I actually see the abortion
> > > debate to be a huge waste of energy.
>
> > Oh, no . ..
>
> > > How hard is it for both sides to find common ground?
>
> > Very simply, if you don't like abortion don't get one.

Still don't get it, won't get it, can't get it.

> The question at hand is...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What if it is the unborn baby that doesn't like abortion?!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you an undead corpse? It is a fallacy to use a partial definition
to replace a well defined word.
Unwanted pregnancy is a horror women have faced for some time now, and
for thousands of years, abortion, as well as contraception, has been
used or banned. It is well known that cultures that are war prone
tend to be misogynists who treat women as breeding sows for more
soldiers, and we've seen that in many a culture in the recent past.

The question is, why, when there is so much harm to women and
children, as in Rumania, when abortion is banned, why would a sane
person in any way oppose access to contraception and abortion?

> Not so simple to anyone who asks that question.

Well, pal, there *are* stupid questions.

> > > I see the
> > > solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> > > abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> > > Hello?!
>
> > Hello, and banning abortion does not end them, only means wealthy
> > women get safe, expensive abortions, and poor women have children they
> > don't want or get unsafe abortions. As was most recently seen in
> > Rumania, this results in really horrible things. Is that what you
> > want?
>
> No. Not at all. I was very clear in what I want. I want the issue
> to be prevented altogether. This can be solved in Romania just as
> well as it can be solved in other parts of the world.

Promoting vasectomies and making sure all women have access to safe
contraception is a start, but we don't have that.

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > > What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
> > > camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
> > > Problem solved. It can be done.

Care to deal with this issue?

> > It has been done. Get a vasectomy and encourage all men to do so
> > because it is the cheapest, safest, most effective, and easiest to use
> > of all methods.
>
> The solution I was pointing toward was a society where *both* boys as
> well as girls had their contributions toward pregnancy curtailed.

Get working on the males, then, since almost all contraception is
geared towards women, and it is often costly and with a significant
morbidity/mortality rate, unlike vasectomies. So why aren't men
willing to contribute?

> > > The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
> > > as a preferred method of birth control.
>
> > And since they don't exist, what is your point?
>
> I had shared that I grew up with a female who used abortion as her
> preferred method of birth control.

Well, if that woman exists, you should deal with her. In person.
Yapping about someone here isn't of any use.

> She later attempted suicide on
> multiple occasions, even after she birthed a live child.

She sounds like a mess, but it's clear you were probably the cause of
her messedupedness.

> I also went
> to high school with a female who aborted a pregnancy, and then later
> was never able to conceive a child. She looks back on that decision
> when she was a teen as a regrettably huge mistake.

So? Assuming these women exist, they sound like they'd be really
fucked up mothers.

> (I'm not quite sure if she sees the abortion as the mistake, or having
> gotten pregnant as the mistake. Probably both.)

I think you drive women to suicide.

> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > >http://doctorvoodoocartoons.com/abortion-debate-kangaroo-vs-platypus/
>
> > > > > > > “This pro-choice debate takes on a whole new dimension for us non-
> > > > > > > placental mammals.”
>
> > > > Btw, two can play this cartoon game:
>
> > > >http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files/2012/03/prudebitch.jpg
>
> > > Excellent!
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > > I am a feminist, by the way.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > > I am all for upholding the respect that
> > > is due to women.
>
> > But you think women aren't due the respect they do.
>
> If the women's movement felt that their liberation included their
> entitlement to own slaves, that would be one more area where my
> version of feminism would be different from theirs. (Hypothetical
> here once again. Emphasis on 'if'.)
>
> <snip>
>
> =Dustin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:25:26 PM3/23/12

to

Methinks you protest to much. Clearly you are against abortion and
think that people would stop if you could make them see it the way you
do.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:29:42 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 4:25 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

<snip>

> >I have not accused anyone of lying.
>
> You do when you say that people who say they are pro-choice are not
> really pro-choice because they don't give due regard to your absurd
> fantasies.

It is quite possible that everyone who supports abortion *does* give
due regard to the life being killed off, and the disconnect is that I
simply misunderstand them. I certainly do not hold anyone to be lying
here. If I did not see honesty in the replies, I would probably not
invest my own time in replying back.

> >I strive to be kind in all my communication.
>
> You betray your own prejudices.
>
> > Kindness is the quality
> >that springs forth from an understanding that we are kind'red
>
> Talk is cheap.

I have not said 'abortion is wrong'. I have not said 'people who get
abortions are bad'. I strive to respect all people in all choices
that are made, even if I see the consequences of those choices to be
highly destructive and harmful. What I have shared are my own views
and opinions. I do not impose my sense of ideals and values onto
others. Nor do I want anyone imposing theirs on me.

...but if you or anyone else present arguments or illustrations of
ways that I can improve myself, I am totally open to considering the
merit of those views.

> >An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
> >it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.
>
> Just like a sperm cell?

I would say, given all that I know, that the level of consciousness of
a sperm cell is above that of a plant. And a plant is above that of a
rock. But the sperm cell as well as the egg cell, individually, are
far below that of an embryo or fetus.

=Dustin

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:33:08 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> > >...or look at this another way...
>
> > >Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> > >announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> > >as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> > >we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> > >your life by the end of today."
>
> > >See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>
> > Another pro-liar is trying to equate freedom from enslavement with
> > the right to murder.

"Woman? What woman?"

> That was not equating abortion to murder. It was an illustration of
> the limits within those in the pro-choice camp. This is hardly a
> controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
> that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.

But we do kill, by omission and comission, millions of actual human
beings every year.
And they, unlike fetuses, are sentient and do suffer.

The fact that you feel a fetus has any right at all to compell a woman
to gestate is pure misogyny and since, in the real world, when women
don't have access to safe abortion, they, and their offspring, do
badly, indicates that whatever point you're trying to make is
illogical and inhumane, to say the least. And since the world already
has more of our species than it can hold, and proof of that is that we
do kill, by omission and comission, millions every year, and we cannot
supply all those born with the basics of life, that forcing gestation
is simply ethically unsupportable.

If you wish to demonstrate that the lessons of history do not apply,
well, then, it's clear you're stupid enough to be an antiabort asswad,
whose mother clearly made the wrong choice on the matter.

What a pity for the rest of the world.

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:27:28 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 12:11 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:52 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 1:57 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 3:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 18, 12:53 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, my . ..
>
> > > Whoever delivers the most scathing insult wins the argument?

oh, my . .

> > What argument? You came in and posted bollocks, you got your ass
> > handed to you.
> > Try introducing this argument in a logic 101 class, I'm sure the
> > teacher could use the laugh.
>
> Logic and philosophy often use hypotheticals.

And when those hypotheticals are bollocks, it's only logical to call
'em bollocks.

> I expect that open-
> minded profs as well as their students would be intrigued by the
> scenario. And yes, they might see the humor in it too.

I suggest you run it by a real prof in a real class and then get back
to me.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:41:09 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 2:50 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <781af192-0ae3-4ccf-a8e0-136ca6e08...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>
> > > ...or look at this another way...
>
> > > Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> > > announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> > > as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> > > we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> > > your life by the end of today."
>
> > > See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>
> > ok. analogies aren't your strong point.
>
> > would you like to offer another?

Are you really this daft?

> The meaning behind analogies and parables and such can only be useful
> if the reader is open to accepting the meaning offered.

And if the reader is not open to accepting bollocks, then you've been
served.

> I happen to see myself as open to the points of view on both sides of
> this argument.

File that under Delusions of Adequacy.

> We could turn this around. If anyone would like to
> offer an analogy that helps shed light on why abortion is such an
> excellent option, I'd be very eager to see that.

If you are pregnant and you don't want to be, it's the only option.
If you have a wanted pregnancy and the fetus dies, it's the only
option. Etc. You do know that many pregnancies fail, don't you?

> Anyone who is unwilling to change is unwilling to grow.

Nope. If you offer bollocks and it's tossed back in your face you
need to change your approach and stop tossing bollocks.

> It is very
> popular these days to criticize change as a 'flip flop'. It's clear
> to me this is a deficient grasp. Changing one's opinion is a 'flip',
> and can very well be an indicator of growth. But a flip *flop* is
> when a position is changed, and then changed back to the original
> position. This too could also be an indicator of growth, but for me
> requires a much more thorough explanation than just a 'flip' before
> I'd be convinced it is growth.

Ronald Reagan was prochoice as Governor of California, and
antiabortion when he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's. He
originally agreed with Goldwater and many others that abortion was
cheaper than welfare. Goldwater never got Alzheimers and never
changed his position on abortion.

elizabeth

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 6:47:22 PM3/23/12

to

"Brave Sir Robin Ran Away"

> As for the notion of wasting words here, I would certainly agree that
> it appears we have gone well past the point of diminishing returns.

Well, the issue is settled, or should be. Only those antiabortnik
freaques keep it on life support, even though the cadaver is
rotting .. . how's that for an analogy for ya?

> I'm totally fine with ending this discussion as is. If anyone adds
> substantial points, I may choose to respond. But it does seem evident
> that our positions have been clearly expressed a while ago.

Yup. If opposed to abortion, don't get one. If male, don't do
anything that could cause a woman to get pregnant unless you re 100%
certain she wishes to conceive.

> I would have been totally fine if the very first post had gone
> unreplied to and just taken as food for thought for anyone open to
> considering it. As for the discussion that has gone on since, I have
> gained a lot from it and I hope I'm not the only one who feels that
> way.

What a slow learner. Most of the world already realizes there is no
sane reason to ban abortion.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:15:16 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 5:48 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I see nothing hypocritical at all. Every single person maintains
> >their own value system because they hold those values to be superior
> >to others. And if they ever have a particular value presented that
> >they find to be superior, they drop their old value and incorporate
> >the new. It is what we all do, by definition. Our values are defined
> >by our actions. If we don't value something, we don't do it. Simple
> >as that.
>
> >If anyone else sees merit with this concept of "enlightened choice",
> >then it becomes *their* value. Not merely mine.
>
> But you are saying that not having abortion is an "enlightened
> choice". That is your hypocrisy. That is maybe YOUR view of an
> "enlightened choice" is it not everybody's. To think that you know
> what is enlightened clearly shows you lack it.

I seem to remember that I had elaborated on what was meant by the term
"enlightened choice". I was saying that the choice was one that gave
due regard to more than just the interests of the self, but included
all who were affected by the choice. And when I said "due regard", I
did not mean they-would-make-their-decisions-based-upon-my-value-
system. Due regard means they use their own values to consider the
interests of others.

I thought that I was being very clear about this. Yet you are
repeatedly trying to contort this into me imposing my value system
onto others.

Once again, everything I've offered here is given for whatever value
anyone may see in it. I can't state this any more clearly. You can
persist in seeing that as oppressive. I have no control over how you
take things. I can at best control how I deliver things.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:06:03 PM3/23/12

to

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:42:31 PM3/23/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 23, 4:25 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
><snip>
>> >I have not accused anyone of lying.
>>
>> You do when you say that people who say they are pro-choice are not
>> really pro-choice because they don't give due regard to your absurd
>> fantasies.
>
>It is quite possible that everyone who supports abortion *does* give
>due regard to the life being killed off, and the disconnect is that I
>simply misunderstand them.

Tell us: Do you give due regard for life when you murder carrots?

>> >I strive to be kind in all my communication.
>>
>> You betray your own prejudices.
>>
>> > Kindness is the quality
>> >that springs forth from an understanding that we are kind'red
>>
>> Talk is cheap.
>
>I have not said 'abortion is wrong'.

I'm not impressed by that kind of childish quibbling.

> I strive to respect all people in all choices
>that are made,

You may "strive" but you do not succeed.

> even if I see the consequences of those choices to be
>highly destructive and harmful.

There's your biases showing again.

> What I have shared are my own views
>and opinions.

Your opinion that people who call themselves pro-choice are not really
pro-choice because they don't give any consideration to the silly
fantasies which you admit are not based in reality.

That's a very dishonest view.

>> >An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
>> >it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.
>>
>> Just like a sperm cell?
>
>I would say, given all that I know, that the level of consciousness of
>a sperm cell is above that of a plant.

Non sequitur.

> And a plant is above that of a
>rock. But the sperm cell as well as the egg cell, individually, are
>far below that of an embryo or fetus.

So what? Are you saying that value is determined by your opinion
of awareness?

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:52:41 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 23, 5:53 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This is hardly a
> >controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
> >that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>
> So? I do not want to be killed, nor do I want to kill. This does not
> mean that it might not be the right choice. What does your or my
> feelings about ourselves have to do with this?
>
> Should the soldier not shoot the enemy because he himself does not
> like the idea of being killed?

Um, yes! That's exactly what the golden rule teaches. If you don't
like the idea of getting shot, then you'd drop your rifle and search
for an alternative solution instead of killing anyone else.

> If you knew your death would save thousands, would you willingly lay
> it down or does your feeling of not wanting to be killed count for
> more?

The self-preservation instinct is very powerful. I do not know
exactly how I would respond if faced with a situation where my
sacrifice would help a single person let alone thousands. I would
hope that I would be principled enough to stand in front of the
tanks. My yearning to not be killed by the tank? I don't see it to
count for all that much since I see it as assumed. The Tank Man, for
instance... I don't see him as suicidal. On the contrary, I see him
as extremely passionate for life.

> This is the point, it should be the choice of the person making it,
> not yours, not mine. I may not agree with the persons choice. But I
> would die defending their right to make a choice. The moment we take
> choices away from people we enact slavery.

Oh really?! I'll tell you now that I am a cannibal. I plan to cook
you and eat you for dinner. According to what you've just stated,
while you're standing in the pot with the water heating up, you'd be
willing to pass me the salt because it is a bit out of my reach.

And I'm actually one of the more compassionate cannibals. I don't
even plan on killing you. I'm just eating the leg meat. So don't
worry, you won't even have to die to defend my right to do what I
want.

But remember now, if you hop out of the vat you will be imposing your
slavery upon me. Right? My freedom of choice will be oppressively
curtailed.
</facetious>

That was all according to the position you've presented. If you see
incompatibility in how this has been reflected back, you might want to
reconsider your view.

=Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:05:19 PM3/23/12

to

Weasel words again. As I state, you make the assumption that your
view of "enlightened choice" is as you see it. For you claimed that
people with "enlightened choice" would reject abortion. This is not
so. People can consider everything you have suggested for making an
enlightened choice and still come to a conclusion different from
yours. Something you seem to constantly fail to grasp.

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:06:58 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>The purpose of the hypothetical was to examine the
>beliefs of those at the rally.

But it did not do that, it only considered your choice to hand out
envelopes. They had no choice in it at all.

This is the problem, you think you are putting clever arguments but
all you are doing is showing that you do not even understand your own
argument.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:07:05 PM3/23/12

to

A pregnancy terminating is quite distinct from a pregnancy being
willfully aborted.

As for your first case...
If you don't want to get pregnant then there are many options to avoid
getting into that state. (Even if raped, as covered earlier.)

> > Anyone who is unwilling to change is unwilling to grow.
>
> Nope. If you offer bollocks and it's tossed back in your face you
> need to change your approach and stop tossing bollocks.
>
> > It is very
> > popular these days to criticize change as a 'flip flop'. It's clear
> > to me this is a deficient grasp. Changing one's opinion is a 'flip',
> > and can very well be an indicator of growth. But a flip *flop* is
> > when a position is changed, and then changed back to the original
> > position. This too could also be an indicator of growth, but for me
> > requires a much more thorough explanation than just a 'flip' before
> > I'd be convinced it is growth.
>
> Ronald Reagan was prochoice as Governor of California, and
> antiabortion when he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's. He
> originally agreed with Goldwater and many others that abortion was
> cheaper than welfare. Goldwater never got Alzheimers and never
> changed his position on abortion.

Abortion is certainly cheaper than welfare. I agree with that point.

Execution is cheaper than appeal too, when it comes to capital
punishment. But I am very glad that we have avenues of appeal to help
insure that no innocent get executed.

The irony in abortion is that the entity being killed off is not even
accused of any wrong doing, let alone convicted. It is in the
ultimate state of innocence. Even in the extreme case of rape, no one
blames the fetus for the pregnancy. Yet it pays the price. It has no
defense team. It has no trial. Only judge (woman) and executioner
(dr).

=Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:43:22 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:52:41 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 5:53 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>>
>> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This is hardly a
>> >controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
>> >that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>>
>> So? I do not want to be killed, nor do I want to kill. This does not
>> mean that it might not be the right choice. What does your or my
>> feelings about ourselves have to do with this?
>>
>> Should the soldier not shoot the enemy because he himself does not
>> like the idea of being killed?
>
>Um, yes! That's exactly what the golden rule teaches. If you don't
>like the idea of getting shot, then you'd drop your rifle and search
>for an alternative solution instead of killing anyone else.

Clearly you have never been in the armed services. If you had you
would know that your survival depends on your mates doing what they
should be doing and their survival on what you should be doing.

Did you stop to run through you "enlightened choice" before dropping
your gun and running.....clearly not!

You really are stupid.

>That was all according to the position you've presented. If you see
>incompatibility in how this has been reflected back, you might want to
>reconsider your view.

No it was not. You have again imposed your narrow view onto me.

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:48:07 PM3/23/12

to

In article
<16d85888-cdc9-4576...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 3:58 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <aa1561d2-4608-47ff-af8b-372fee921...@hv2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
> > > it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.
> >
> > an "unborn child" is a misleading, emotion-filled paradox particularly
> > unsuitable for the abortion debate. those who use it do so as a defense
> > against the illogic of their position.
>
> "Child", definition #4: "a human fetus".
> reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child
>
> You might want to elevate your complaint to the people who write
> dictionaries. But then again, they are just following what society
> uses as the definitions of words. So it appears that your complaint
> has a vast audience to reach if you want it to have the effect you
> seem to want...
>
> "Child can only mean the definitions other than 4, so don't even try
> to be explicit about what you mean by prefixing it with 'unborn'."

sadly you are following the age old anti-choice script rather than
trying to frame your arguments with reason. i have always believed that
is because there are no reasons to defend your position.

there are very few who fail to understand the differences between the
born and unborn.

as i said, those tho use "unborn child" as a prop to flawed reasoning
are destined to fail as you have.

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:53:00 PM3/23/12

to

Killed off then the carcass discarded in a Hefty bag is the kind of
evidence I was going by.

Now if I was to learn that there was some kind of solemn ceremony that
was part of the abortion process, involving giving it a name, or so
little as looking at its sonogram or listening to its heart beat at
the moment it was killed, then I would re-evaluate. Those would be
indicators of what I consider to be due respect.

And yes, I readily admit that I have bias. We all do.

> > <snip>
>
> > > > I was not saying that is a change I want. I actually see the abortion
> > > > debate to be a huge waste of energy.
>
> > > Oh, no . ..
>
> > > > How hard is it for both sides to find common ground?
>
> > > Very simply, if you don't like abortion don't get one.
>
> Still don't get it, won't get it, can't get it.

If your goal here is for me to agree with your position, you are not
presenting much that I find compelling toward persuading me.

> > The question at hand is...
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > What if it is the unborn baby that doesn't like abortion?!
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Are you an undead corpse? It is a fallacy to use a partial definition
> to replace a well defined word.
> Unwanted pregnancy is a horror women have faced for some time now, and
> for thousands of years, abortion, as well as contraception, has been
> used or banned. It is well known that cultures that are war prone
> tend to be misogynists who treat women as breeding sows for more
> soldiers, and we've seen that in many a culture in the recent past.
>
> The question is, why, when there is so much harm to women and
> children, as in Rumania, when abortion is banned, why would a sane
> person in any way oppose access to contraception and abortion?

Well for one, if contraception access was adequate, then the vast
majority of unwanted pregnancy situations could be completely
prevented. So it would seem to me to be perfectly rational to hold a
position of promoting contraception while at the same time
discouraging abortion.

> > Not so simple to anyone who asks that question.
>
> Well, pal, there *are* stupid questions.

I agree. And those who say, "there's no such thing as a stupid
question" are really just inviting people to reveal just how stupid
they are.

> > > > I see the
> > > > solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> > > > abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> > > > Hello?!
>
> > > Hello, and banning abortion does not end them, only means wealthy
> > > women get safe, expensive abortions, and poor women have children they
> > > don't want or get unsafe abortions. As was most recently seen in
> > > Rumania, this results in really horrible things. Is that what you
> > > want?
>
> > No. Not at all. I was very clear in what I want. I want the issue
> > to be prevented altogether. This can be solved in Romania just as
> > well as it can be solved in other parts of the world.
>
> Promoting vasectomies and making sure all women have access to safe
> contraception is a start, but we don't have that.

Not sure why you're saying "all women", because there are very
effective methods of contraception that men can take control over.
Also, the condom does a lot more than prevent pregnancy. But yes,
contraception on both sides will go a long way toward obsoleting this
problem.

And for those who are opposed to artificial forms of contraception,
the by-far most effective way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence, for
those who actually have the self-control to follow it.

The success of abstinence has everything to do with avoiding
temptation, and right now I'm doing all I can to control myself from
throwing in a rubber-meets-the-road joke here...

> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > > > What I want is for the vehement pro-choice and the vehement pro-life
> > > > camps to join forces. Build upon this common ground together.
> > > > Problem solved. It can be done.
>
> Care to deal with this issue?

The debate is focused on incompatible ways to deal with unwanted
pregnancies. The common ground is that both sides prefer a situation
where unwanted pregnancies are avoided and the issue never needs to be
addressed. It's that simple. Instead of wasting energy in attempting
to persuade the other side to agree with things they are totally
opposed to, join forces toward the common goal of helping women to not
get pregnant when they don't want to be.

Here ground can be gained by helping everyone to see that abstinence
is a valuable avenue toward that goal.

And also contraception is a valuable avenue. Someone should create
pope-hat shaped condoms and maybe that will help to bring the Catholic
Church on board.

Jokes aside, there is actually a beauty to the Catholic approach to
the situation. It is focused on honoring the spiritual aspects of the
act of intercourse. There is a lot to be gained by everyone if they
can learn to see the value in that goal.

> > > It has been done. Get a vasectomy and encourage all men to do so
> > > because it is the cheapest, safest, most effective, and easiest to use
> > > of all methods.
>
> > The solution I was pointing toward was a society where *both* boys as
> > well as girls had their contributions toward pregnancy curtailed.
>
> Get working on the males, then, since almost all contraception is
> geared towards women, and it is often costly and with a significant
> morbidity/mortality rate, unlike vasectomies. So why aren't men
> willing to contribute?

? Not sure I agree with you there. At least in just about every high
school movie I see the contraception being discussed is a condom, not
"are you on the pill?" The condom is cheap, easy and male. Many
males are willing to contribute, especially in our post-Rock Hudson
era.

As for more males being willing to undergo vasectomies, I expect
there's a resistance to the feeling that it takes away from one's
manhood. I myself would like to see a micro-valve procedure invented,
where the vasectomy effect is instantly reversed with the flip of a
switch. The type of valve to be used would be ...wait for it... a
ball valve, naturally. There's probably a much more simple way to
help men overcome this psychological barrier with vasectomies.

> > > > The only people who would be upset is those who want to keep abortion
> > > > as a preferred method of birth control.
>
> > > And since they don't exist, what is your point?
>
> > I had shared that I grew up with a female who used abortion as her
> > preferred method of birth control.
>
> Well, if that woman exists, you should deal with her. In person.
> Yapping about someone here isn't of any use.

She actually wants to have nothing to do with me. And I've never even
discussed the abortion topic with her.

> > She later attempted suicide on
> > multiple occasions, even after she birthed a live child.
>
> She sounds like a mess, but it's clear you were probably the cause of
> her messedupedness.

On the contrary, I wonder what her life would have turned out like if
I had been there near her during these times in her formative years
when she was facing these situations.

> > I also went
> > to high school with a female who aborted a pregnancy, and then later
> > was never able to conceive a child. She looks back on that decision
> > when she was a teen as a regrettably huge mistake.
>
> So? Assuming these women exist, they sound like they'd be really
> fucked up mothers.
>
> > (I'm not quite sure if she sees the abortion as the mistake, or having
> > gotten pregnant as the mistake. Probably both.)
>
> I think you drive women to suicide.

No one gets depressed because of anything that is done *to* them. The
typical emotion for that is anger. Depression is caused by not being
at peace with a decision made by one's self.

So I am quite confident that the worst I could have instigated is
hatred. Not suicide. No one commits suicide because they are irate.
And even for a person being hateful, that is still a condition that I
see the self to be responsible for. You can be in the most oppressive
situation and still find happiness. That's the message from the movie
"Life Is Beautiful." Anyone anywhere can choose to be happy.

...like me on this message board. People can choose to throw crap at
me, but I have the choice on whether or not to get angry over it.

=Dustin

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:54:10 PM3/23/12

to

In article
<bc14574e-4745-4e06...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article

> > <781af192-0ae3-4ccf-a8e0-136ca6e08...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
> >
> > > ...or look at this another way...
> >
> > > Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> > > announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> > > as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> > > we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> > > your life by the end of today."
> >
> > > See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
> >

> > ok. analogies aren't your strong point.
> >
> > would you like to offer another?

>
> The meaning behind analogies and parables and such can only be useful
> if the reader is open to accepting the meaning offered.

since the talk.abortion group was formed many years before any of the
others you are posting to, no one has ever presented a credible analogy
to abortion. this is fairly significant, i think, since in the years
before readily available internet access, just about all of those
posting were educated, literate people.

you seem to have entered a decades old debate here without researching
the history of that debate.

> I happen to see myself as open to the points of view on both sides of

> this argument. We could turn this around. If anyone would like to

> offer an analogy that helps shed light on why abortion is such an
> excellent option, I'd be very eager to see that.

you seem focused more on analogies than a woman's right to undergo a
medical procedure.

> Anyone who is unwilling to change is unwilling to grow. It is very

> popular these days to criticize change as a 'flip flop'. It's clear
> to me this is a deficient grasp. Changing one's opinion is a 'flip',
> and can very well be an indicator of growth. But a flip *flop* is
> when a position is changed, and then changed back to the original
> position. This too could also be an indicator of growth, but for me
> requires a much more thorough explanation than just a 'flip' before
> I'd be convinced it is growth.
>

> =Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 8:59:23 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Now if I was to learn that there was some kind of solemn ceremony

Why now force ceremony onto people?

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 10:43:22 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 11:44 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 20, 10:45 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > [--lots deleted--]

> > > > > The hypothesis is not that the woman does not exist. It is that the
> > > > > life entity developing into a human being is worthy of consideration
> > > > > *separate* from all considerations due to the woman.
> > > > That is impossible. You can't point to a fetus without pointing to a
> > > > pregnant woman. You cannot legitimately claim to care about a fetus
> > > > without caring about the woman who carries it. It's a package deal,
> > > > Dustin.

> > > For the platypus, it is not.
>

> > Nobody's arguing for or against abortion rights for platypuses.
>
> Agreed. A prerequisite for morality is the ability to make conscious
> choices.

>
> > > (It was established up front that this is a hypothetical.)
>

> > Another name for a hypothetical that lacks relevance is "wankage".
>
> I recommend that anyone take the hypothetical only to the extent of
> any relevance they find in it.

I see zero relevance, so put me on the "not taking" list and we'll be
done with it.

> I happen to see it as highly relevant.

That makes you a wanker, in my view.

“Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What
you now call the free play of inquiry has neither
more nor less to do with the ends for which
intelligence was given you than masturbation
has to do with marriage.” -- C.S. Lewis

> Others will see absolutely no relevance. Of course, it is
> totally possible to dismiss it completely today, and then
> one day wake up with an a-ha realization of what it was
> saying.

Wishful thinking.

> > > How hard is it for both sides to find common ground? I see the

> > > solution here to be perfectly obvious. One side likes the option to
> > > abort unwanted pregnancies. The other side hates that option.
> > > Hello?!
> > >

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > How about everyone works together to *avoid* unwanted pregnancies?!
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[...]

> > *Sigh*. That would be nice, wouldn't it? It will never happen. Even
> > if pro-choicers (like me) could muster enough civility to not be mean
> > to poor, put-upon anti-choicers, there will never be a Grand Bargain
> > between the two sides. It will never happen because the anti-choice
> > movement is fueled with lies and it does not bargain (or argue) in
> > good faith.

> I can definitely see the shortcomings of attitudes on that side of the
> argument. And if you see the attitudes on your side of this to be
> perfect, then you might want to visit an optometrist to check for
> myopia.

Dustin, I have been engaged with this issue for decades. I have
worked as a clinic escort, I have talked to many, many so-called "pro-
lifers".

> > As we mean old pro-choicers have tried to explain for years, the anti-
> > choice movement (not all anti-choicers, but the movement) is anti-
> > female-autonomy, anti-unapproved-by-them-sex, and, yes, anti-birth-
> > control. The most compelling evidence of this is all the anti-choice
> > legislation that has cascaded out of the Republican-controlled House
> > of Representatives and various state legislatures these past couple of
> > years. I would hope that is obvious to even the most politically-
> > unengaged citizen that the anti-choice movement is against even
> > commonsense policies to reduce the need for abortion, like funding
> > birth control or prenatal care or comprehensive sex education.

> I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".

It describes people who respect and trust women to make their own
reproductive choices, without hindrance from the government, the
church or other busybodies.

> The most comprehensive pro-choice approach to unwanted pregnancy
> would be to have a crystal ball that peered into an alternative future
> where the child was carried to term, grew up, understood what life was
> and what non-existence was... and then *ask that child*, "How do you
> feel about this decision?"

There you go again: "Woman? What woman?"

> THAT is the most pro-choice stance - when the lives of *all* who are
> affected by the decision are given due consideration.

The Jonah Goldberg Principle is invoked: "I can win any debate if I
can redefine the terms."

> In this light, anti-abortion can be seen as more pro-choice than those
> who call themselves "pro-choice".

In that light, white is darker than black.

> The camp called pro-choice is actually a mother-centric

What else could it be???

> limitation of a fully-realized-choice position.

Setting boundaries, actually.

> And the entire point of the platypus hypothesis is to
> illustrate that exactly. The egg and the mother often have competing
> interests. There is a war going on to resolve the conflict.

There is a war on, but that is not the point. The war is about
whether the woman will make her own reproductive decisions or the
government will do it for her.

> The reason why we have the situation we have today is because the
> "Fetus Army", if you will, is so easy to overpower. It is very easy to
> see nuclear weapons and smart bombs to be lacking in respect toward
> humanity. Saline, not quite as easy for all to see.

Saline. Hmmm...

> > The idea that the two sides can agree that reducing abortion is a good
> > thing and so we should find common ground is a delusion, a mirage.
> > But still, we stupid, mean pro-choicers sure are crazy for suggesting
> > that! Almost as crazy as when we said the Iraq war was a dumb idea!
> > And it's all our fault... for being so mean!
>
> You've found here at least one person who does not identify with the
> so-called pro-choice camp who is advocating it.
>
> And one reason for posting to a Catholic forum is because I expect
> that the vast majority of Catholics are open to practices that are not
> official sanctioned by their church. They choose what they see as
> smart over what they see as hopelessly outdated (as Monty Python
> hilariously does as well).

Or as someone once said, "Catholics are too sensible to go crazy any
time the Pope goes crazy."

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 12:51:45 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 7:05 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne

I said that enlightened choice leads to rejection of abortion? You
might want to go back and look at what I actually said, versus what
you say I said. I don't even have to look back myself, because I'm
certain I never said that.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:07:14 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 6:37 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 23, 4:19 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > It was an illustration of
> >> >the limits within those in the pro-choice camp.
>
> >> It was an absurd argument based upon nonsense.
>
> >> > Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
> >> >that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>
> >> Using your logic I would be justified in describing you as a murderer
> >> because you have killed, by your refusal to procreate, future children
> >> that you might have had.
>
> >I don't follow the reasoning behind that at all.
>
> You refused to consider the wishes of the future people represented
> by the sperm before killing them.

Monty Python was being outrageously facetious with that song that I
posted. And even as comedians, I expect they have a crystal clear
understanding between the difference between a gamete and a zygote.
They may not know the words, but they understand the concept behind
the words. So with the biology basics laid out, clearly there is a
huge difference between the two. A male by himself is incapable of
reproduction. A female by herself, likewise.

Once again, you have distorted what I actually said versus the straw
man you are attempting to set up. An obvious phallusy of logic.

> >> Your "argument" depends upon a fantasy with no basis in reality.
> >> It is daft nonsense. "Bullshit" in more succinct terminology.
>
> >I've presented hypotheticals as thought experiments.
>
> Your "hypotheticals" are trivially dismissed as nothing more than
> silly fantasies created solely to attack other people's views.

I offer an attack on no one. But you're free to take it however you
want.

> > I readily agree
> >that these are not based in reality.
>
> So you're commenting on the pro-choice position by creating a
> fantasy that you admit isn't reality.
>
> That is not rational.

You can criticize Einstein for his elevator thought experiment being
pure fantasy. However, many people have achieved dramatic insight
from the exercise.

> > I would be horrified if anyone
> >were to do anything like that at a "pro-choice" rally or pro or anti
> >anything rally. The purpose of the hypothetical was to examine the
> >beliefs of those at the rally.
>
> That's obviously not true. What you're doing is constructing a
> strawman in order to attack people. You're not examining anybody's
> beliefs because your hypothetical is not based upon any sort of
> reality.

There's a huge difference between a straw man and a hypothetical
thought experiment.

The disconnect between your posts and mine are growing wider and
wider. You either do not understand what I've stated, or you're
deliberately distorting what I've stated. In either case, I see
absolutely no point in continuing along these lines you're persisting
on.

I'd be glad to reply to anything valid you might like to add. But if
I don't reply any more to you, that is because I see no point in
continuing. I have much more productive ways to spend my time, and I
expect that you do too.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:10:21 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 7:06 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The purpose of the hypothetical was to examine the
> >beliefs of those at the rally.
>
> But it did not do that, it only considered your choice to hand out
> envelopes. They had no choice in it at all.

Their choice comes in with their reaction to learning that their lives
are being terminated without their consent. If they are ok with
someone doing that to them, then there is no anger or resistance in
their response to the new information.

> This is the problem, you think you are putting clever arguments but
> all you are doing is showing that you do not even understand your own
> argument.

Once again, you're free to reject anything and everything I've
presented. I'm totally ok with that.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:22:27 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 5:33 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 22, 10:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > >On Mar 22, 1:44 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>

> > > >...or look at this another way...
>
> > > >Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> > > >announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed to you
> > > >as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other half
> > > >we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will end
> > > >your life by the end of today."
>
> > > >See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.
>

> > > Another pro-liar is trying to equate freedom from enslavement with
> > > the right to murder.
>

> "Woman? What woman?"
>
> > That was not equating abortion to murder. It was an illustration of
> > the limits within those in the pro-choice camp. This is hardly a
> > controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement

> > that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>

> But we do kill, by omission and comission, millions of actual human
> beings every year.
> And they, unlike fetuses, are sentient and do suffer.

If you believe that fetuses are not sentient, then there is not a mere
gap between our positions. It is a chasm.

As for killing millions of people, I've never killed a single one by
either way. I have no idea what you mean.

> The fact that you feel a fetus has any right at all to compell a woman
> to gestate is pure misogyny and since, in the real world, when women
> don't have access to safe abortion, they, and their offspring, do
> badly, indicates that whatever point you're trying to make is
> illogical and inhumane, to say the least. And since the world already
> has more of our species than it can hold, and proof of that is that we
> do kill, by omission and comission, millions every year, and we cannot
> supply all those born with the basics of life, that forcing gestation
> is simply ethically unsupportable.

I've never expressed any desire for a fetus to compel anyone to do
anything. Fetuses are powerless. They are incapable of exerting any
decisions.

As for the capacity to support human life, take the United States as
one example. It has abundant resources to support a lot more people
than currently live there. Yet abortion is rampant. I don't see how
your argument can be seen as sound. But if you prefer a zero
population growth to help the quality of life that currently exists, I
could agree with that. And I'd go further to point out that there are
smarter ways to achieve that than through continuing to get pregnant
and then aborting.

> If you wish to demonstrate that the lessons of history do not apply,
> well, then, it's clear you're stupid enough to be an antiabort asswad,
> whose mother clearly made the wrong choice on the matter.
>
> What a pity for the rest of the world.

You're free to gauge my intelligence level anywhere you see fit. And
you're free to continue with the rash of insults that seems to be your
style. You can add your pity to the world. My effort is focused on
helping to improve it.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:37:02 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 7:43 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:52:41 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne

> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 23, 5:53 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:30:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >This is hardly a
> >> >controversial point. Both sides of this debate are in firm agreement
> >> >that they do not like the idea of being killed themselves.
>
> >> So? I do not want to be killed, nor do I want to kill. This does not
> >> mean that it might not be the right choice. What does your or my
> >> feelings about ourselves have to do with this?
>
> >> Should the soldier not shoot the enemy because he himself does not
> >> like the idea of being killed?
>
> >Um, yes! That's exactly what the golden rule teaches. If you don't
> >like the idea of getting shot, then you'd drop your rifle and search
> >for an alternative solution instead of killing anyone else.
>
> Clearly you have never been in the armed services. If you had you
> would know that your survival depends on your mates doing what they
> should be doing and their survival on what you should be doing.

Instead of telling you my experience with the armed forces, I'll share
a story I heard...

There's an international fraternal group called the Masons. During
the Korean war, one North Korean soldier was isolated. He ended up
face to face with an American soldier. Instead of shooting each
other, the Korean gave a secret Masonic sign. The other soldier
happened to be a Mason himself. They both departed in peace.

I don't know whether the story is true. But it's not inconceivable.
There's even been movies made based on that kind of premise. One is a
WWII movie where a German and an American (IIRC) are friend before the
war. They meet after a battle in a small village. They re-establish
their friendship, and the German helps the American return to his
side.

Again, this could be pure fiction. I did not check to see if the
story claimed to be based on reality. But the movie was quite
engaging and thought provoking.

> Did you stop to run through you "enlightened choice" before dropping
> your gun and running.....clearly not!

Fight / flight are not the only two choices available. Tank Man from
Tiananmen Square gave the world an excellent example of a third
choice: steadfastly oppose the violence. Gandhi called this option
'satyagraha', meaning something like soul power or truth power.

> >> This is the point, it should be the choice of the person making it,
> >> not yours, not mine. I may not agree with the persons choice. But I
> >> would die defending their right to make a choice. The moment we take
> >> choices away from people we enact slavery.
>
> >Oh really?! I'll tell you now that I am a cannibal. I plan to cook
> >you and eat you for dinner. According to what you've just stated,
> >while you're standing in the pot with the water heating up, you'd be
> >willing to pass me the salt because it is a bit out of my reach.
>
> >And I'm actually one of the more compassionate cannibals. I don't
> >even plan on killing you. I'm just eating the leg meat. So don't
> >worry, you won't even have to die to defend my right to do what I
> >want.
>
> >But remember now, if you hop out of the vat you will be imposing your
> >slavery upon me. Right? My freedom of choice will be oppressively
> >curtailed.
> ></facetious>
>
> You really are stupid.

If I am stupid, and you are spending so much effort on engaging
conversation with a person this stupid, who is more stupid?

(I'm going to take a moment to reflect on the converse of that...)

> >That was all according to the position you've presented. If you see
> >incompatibility in how this has been reflected back, you might want to
> >reconsider your view.
>
> No it was not. You have again imposed your narrow view onto me.

I actually see my view as quite broad and inclusive.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:47:45 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 7:54 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <bc14574e-4745-4e06-9887-d1b0b2a5d...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

If this has been so thoroughly thought through (*phew*) then it would
be quite simple for anyone familiar with that argument to cut straight
to the established analysis to show exactly how the positions I've
presented are invalid. Post number two could have been a
talk.abortion quote from 1980-whatever. I could have read through
that old debate and then said, a-ha. It's all be worked out. But
that hasn't happened, and you're not even pointing to any old
discussion yourself. You're not even summarizing what you remember of
it.

This thread is beyond 80 posts long. There's been ample time for
anyone to shed light on how arguments I've presented are invalid. But
the rash of insults actually serve to reinforce my belief that those
well-constructed rebuttals don't exist. I agree it's quite possible
that the people with the ability to construct such rebuttals have long
since departed the Usenet cesspool. I'd be quite satisfied with a
link, if one exists.

> > I happen to see myself as open to the points of view on both sides of
> > this argument. We could turn this around. If anyone would like to
> > offer an analogy that helps shed light on why abortion is such an
> > excellent option, I'd be very eager to see that.
>
> you seem focused more on analogies than a woman's right to undergo a
> medical procedure.

The very purpose of the hypothetical is to illuminate how if only the
"woman's right" is considered, then the decision is missing a huge
piece of the equation.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:59:39 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 5:25 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> Methinks you protest to much. Clearly you are against abortion and
> think that people would stop if you could make them see it the way you
> do.

I've lived plenty of decades. I've never been faced with the abortion
decision. Because of that, I cannot know with absolute certainty
whether I am for or against it. That would be the ultimate test of
one's convictions.

And I have no desire to have anyone hold the same view that I do. But
if they'd like to consider aspects of the view I've presented, then
great. And if people with views that are different from mine would
like to present compelling reasons for why they believe what they
believe, then that gives me the opportunity to incorporate aspects of
that into my beliefs and I grow. I am thankful for the examples of
that within this thread.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 2:06:52 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 4:23 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Mar 22, 10:47 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".
>

> >> Tghis will be amusing.

>
> >> >The most comprehensive pro-choice approach to unwanted pregnancy would
> >> >be to have a crystal ball that peered into an alternative future where
> >> >the child was carried to term, grew up, understood what life was and
> >> >what non-existence was... and then *ask that child*, "How do you feel
> >> >about this decision?"
>

> >> But of course that is a silly fantasy with no basis in reality.

>
> >> >THAT is the most pro-choice stance
>

> >> Too bad that it's an impossibility and a fiction.
> >> It also depends upon a decidedly anti-women presumption:
> >> That the wishes of a fetus should override the rights of a woman.
>
> >I have never stated anywhere, nor even so much as implied, that the
> >wishes of a fetus should override those of the woman.
>
> Then your essay is not only based upon an impossible fantasy, it is
> also completely pointless.
>
> Wankerage, in other words.

(I am clear on the point I was making.)

> >What I have presented here repeatedly is the view of the fetus being
> >given due respect.
>
> A VIEW WHICH DOES NOT EXIST!

If respect is not given, then yes, it does not exist.

> > Killing it off without considering its own
> >interests falls short of that.
>
> IT HAS NO INTERESTS!

You started your existence as a single cell. I see that cell to have
had an interest. You don't. Ok.

> You might as well argue that the wishes of sperm should be considered
> before either abstaining from sex or using contraception.

If I ever learn that the 'every sperm is sacred' view has value beyond
comedic mockery, then I may choose to pursue that as a valid angle.

=Dustin

> >> Using your nonsense one could just as validly argue that rape should
> >> be legal since allowing women to refuse sex would terminate the life
> >> of a possible future person.
>
> >I have yet to address my position on the rape situation.
>
> Gesundheit.

> >But how hard is that to answer? Modern medicine has made the answer
> >to the rape scenario very easy. (Obviously not psychologically easy,
> >but medically and morally easy.) The obvious answer is called the
> >morning after pill. If you've been raped, then take that pill.
>
> Without considering the wishes of the zygote?

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 2:14:51 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 1:44 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >The most comprehensive pro-choice approach to unwanted pregnancy would
> >be to have a crystal ball that peered into an alternative future where
> >the child was carried to term, grew up, understood what life was and
> >what non-existence was... and then *ask that child*, "How do you feel
> >about this decision?"
>
> But of course that is a silly fantasy with no basis in reality.

The reality is a concept known as empathy.

> >THAT is the most pro-choice stance
>
> Too bad that it's an impossibility and a fiction.
> It also depends upon a decidedly anti-women presumption:
> That the wishes of a fetus should override the rights of a woman.

The position I've repeated is one where the fetus is given due
consideration. 'Due consideration' does not mean 'override'.

> Using your nonsense one could just as validly argue that rape should
> be legal since allowing women to refuse sex would terminate the life
> of a possible future person.

...or not.

> >- when the lives of *all* who are
> >affected by the decision are given due consideration.
>

> But that IS the case. There is no future life. It's a fiction.

I was talking about due consideration to the present unborn life.
Hardly a fiction, as much as anyone may want to wish it away.

> >In this light, anti-abortion can be seen as more pro-choice than those
>

> Lying about people is not a respectful tactic and is typical of the
> pro-liar who cannot tell the truth.

There certainly are distortions happening here rampantly. I totally
agree that such methods are not respectful.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 2:23:50 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 7:48 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <16d85888-cdc9-4576-9716-6e40553b2...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Other people may be here to compete, defend and win.

I'm here to present what I know so that others have the opportunity to
learn, and for me to learn from anything positive and productive
offered in return.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 2:41:44 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 5:45 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne

>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I have not said 'abortion is wrong'.
>

> But you have, maybe not directly, but all your posts are about the
> fact that you think "enlightened" people would not have abortions.
> Clearly you think they should not occur and think that anybody who has
> or supports abortion is not "enlightened". That has been the thread
> running through all your posts.

I *do not* hold that abortions should not occur. I never said nor
implied that "enlightened choice" equates to not aborting. I've been
very clear that I have no desire to impose my values onto anyone else.

> At least be honest. The faked appeal is both insulting and make you
> look stupid for thinking people would not see through it.

I don't see anything I've offered at this forum to constitute an
appeal. I have not petitioned anyone, "Please, no one get an
abortion." Nor, "Please, everyone get a partial birth abortion."

What I've been doing here is offering views that might help people to
see things in ways they may not have considered before, as well as
ideas that I see to have potential for improving the current
situation. Of course there will always be those who prefer the status
quo over any effort toward change. Change is often seen as
uncomfortable and threatening.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 3:03:03 AM3/24/12

to

On Mar 23, 6:42 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 23, 4:25 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >I have not accused anyone of lying.
>
> >> You do when you say that people who say they are pro-choice are not
> >> really pro-choice because they don't give due regard to your absurd
> >> fantasies.
>
> >It is quite possible that everyone who supports abortion *does* give
> >due regard to the life being killed off, and the disconnect is that I
> >simply misunderstand them.
>
> Tell us: Do you give due regard for life when you murder carrots?

It has been a very long time since I have personally uprooted a
carrot. But if I were to do that tomorrow, there are those who would
say that I would not give its life due regard. I'd walk up to it with
the thought that it doesn't feel pain, so as readily as I would move a
stone, I would pull up that carrot. But the life of a carrot is far
above the existence of any stone. So maybe it would be more fitting
if I were to take a moment of silence prior to pulling up the carrot.

There are people who care a lot more for plant life than I do. I have
yet to be persuaded by their views, but I am open to the possibility
that they are valid, and mine is deficient. I expect those people
would hold that me uprooting a carrot without so much as a pause is
not giving its life due regard. If I ever get persuaded by their
views, then I will change my current attitude toward carrots.

> >> >I strive to be kind in all my communication.
>
> >> You betray your own prejudices.
>
> >> > Kindness is the quality
> >> >that springs forth from an understanding that we are kind'red
>
> >> Talk is cheap.
>
> >I have not said 'abortion is wrong'.
>
> I'm not impressed by that kind of childish quibbling.
>
> > I strive to respect all people in all choices
> >that are made,
>
> You may "strive" but you do not succeed.
>
> > even if I see the consequences of those choices to be
> >highly destructive and harmful.
>
> There's your biases showing again.
>
> > What I have shared are my own views
> >and opinions.
>
> Your opinion that people who call themselves pro-choice are not really
> pro-choice because they don't give any consideration to the silly
> fantasies which you admit are not based in reality.
>
> That's a very dishonest view.

I believe that every single woman who gets an abortion gives PLENTY of
consideration to the life that is killed off. The question is whether
that consideration happens before the termination, or after the
termination.

> >> >An unborn child may not yet be developed into a fully-human being, but
> >> >it is worthy of higher consideration than that due to a rock.
>
> >> Just like a sperm cell?
>
> >I would say, given all that I know, that the level of consciousness of
> >a sperm cell is above that of a plant.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > And a plant is above that of a
> >rock. But the sperm cell as well as the egg cell, individually, are
> >far below that of an embryo or fetus.
>
> So what? Are you saying that value is determined by your opinion
> of awareness?

The various levels of consciousness are not merely a matter of
opinion. There are scientifically objective measures that form an
excellent first-cut toward such a grading. So no, I see it to be far
more than just my opinion.

=Dustin

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 5:53:07 AM3/24/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Instead of telling you my experience with the armed forces, I'll share
>a story I heard...

You have shown you have none, end of. I dislike deceit. So your
trying to pretend you have is insulting to those who have actually
served to defend your sorry ass.

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 5:54:43 AM3/24/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:22:27 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But we do kill, by omission and comission, millions of actual human
>> beings every year.
>> And they, unlike fetuses, are sentient and do suffer.
>
>If you believe that fetuses are not sentient, then there is not a mere
>gap between our positions. It is a chasm.

At what point does it become sentient. That is the point that will
remove any gap. Prove the point of where you think it lies. I know
what current science knows, what do you think you know?

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 5:56:03 AM3/24/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But it did not do that, it only considered your choice to hand out
>> envelopes. They had no choice in it at all.
>
>Their choice comes in with their reaction to learning that their lives
>are being terminated without their consent.

I give up. If this is what you consider choice then you really are
sadly lacking in the ability to think.

I know the argument you are trying to make. Many have made it
eloquently, sadly you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 6:05:31 AM3/24/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 5:45 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>>
>> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I have not said 'abortion is wrong'.
>>
>> But you have, maybe not directly, but all your posts are about the
>> fact that you think "enlightened" people would not have abortions.
>> Clearly you think they should not occur and think that anybody who has
>> or supports abortion is not "enlightened". That has been the thread
>> running through all your posts.
>
>I *do not* hold that abortions should not occur. I never said nor
>implied that "enlightened choice" equates to not aborting. I've been
>very clear that I have no desire to impose my values onto anyone else.

The problem is that you have and I am not the only person who has
pointed this out to you. Are we all wrong and only you are right?

>> At least be honest. The faked appeal is both insulting and make you
>> look stupid for thinking people would not see through it.
>
>I don't see anything I've offered at this forum to constitute an
>appeal. I have not petitioned anyone, "Please, no one get an
>abortion." Nor, "Please, everyone get a partial birth abortion."
>
>What I've been doing here is offering views that might help people to
>see things in ways they may not have considered before, as well as
>ideas that I see to have potential for improving the current
>situation. Of course there will always be those who prefer the status
>quo over any effort toward change. Change is often seen as
>uncomfortable and threatening.

What change is it you want then?

What change is it that you think is needed.

Alan Ferris

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 6:08:35 AM3/24/12

to

On 23 Mar 2012 23:42:31 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>>It is quite possible that everyone who supports abortion *does* give
>>due regard to the life being killed off, and the disconnect is that I
>>simply misunderstand them.
>
>Tell us: Do you give due regard for life when you murder carrots?

Do you?

Do you consider the damage caused to wildlife when you remove a field
of wheat?

Do you consider the damage caused to wildlife when they tear down a
forest to plant soya?

Do you consider the damage caused by eating an Ice Cream just for
pleasure whilst children are starving in the world.

Do you consider the damage to wildlife when you cut your lawn?

Where do you draw the line in your concern for life, exactly where
would you stop before causing harm to a living creature?

Spartakus

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 9:09:08 AM3/24/12

to

Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'd like to stop here for a moment to examine the label "pro-choice".

> ...or look at this another way...
>
> Go to any rally that centers on being "pro-choice". Make a grand
> announcement to the crowd: "You know those envelopes we handed
> to you as you came in? Half of them were just envelopes. To the other
> half we selected, you were given envelopes laced with a toxin that will
> end your life by the end of today."

Amazing! Another anti-choicer posts about killing lots and lots of
people!

> See how well the crowd supports your "right to choice" of that act.

If these folks were physically attached to you and your envelope-
distributing henchmen, accessing your bodily resources to the
detriment of your health and well-being, you might have a point.
Otherwise, this is yet another instance of wankage on your part, and a
rather disturbing one at that. Why do so many anti-choicers have
genocidal fantasies?

> Clearly, pro-choice is not pro-ALL-choice. The platform has a
> distinctly limited scope protecting a woman's individual choice.

Jonah Goldberg Principle invoked.

> If the opposing camp is closely examined, you may find members there
> who happen to be staunch advocates of people's freedom of choice.

Baloney.

james g. keegan jr.

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 9:28:23 AM3/24/12

to

In article
<8ba29c8a-8780-433e...@w32g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:

[....]

> I was talking about due consideration to the present unborn life.

so you agree with status quo then?