A word on Hate...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As for my happiness or purpose in life? Edit: I have nothing anymore. The worldbuilding project that my NS nation is a part of is literally the only thing thats keeping me alive. The feelings of pure hopelessness I've had the past several months I would not wish on anyone.


The problem with the pro-life crowd, is that very few of them, if any, bother to think of the welfare of the kid AFTER they're born. How many kids have been saved from abortion, only to be neglected, abused, or sent to the wayside by the very same people who supposedly espouse their perfect value as a living being?

I am so sorry about what you've had to endure. While I can't say I've been through the same, I have experienced things I'd call hopelessness and deep sadness and depression, and if you ever need someone to talk to, I will gladly give a listening ear.

Yes, that's my greatest criticism as well. The problem is that most of the people who would have Pro-Life sentiments (at least in the U.S) also tend to have opposition to any form of Socialism or institutionalized healthcare. You know, Republicans. They expect children to be born and then everything's fine. I know differently though. If a pro-life victory is to be achieved, there needs to be an overhaul in how we interact with the lower classes and mothers in general.

That's not my only problem with pro-life advocates.

My issue with many of them, from a medical standpoint, is that they glorify a practice that is not as glamorous as they think to begin with. Medicine is not in the business of saving lives. Doctors let patients die every day. Right now, even, I bet you someone is being pulled out of life support to die in the way they want, or because their family doesn't have the money to keep them on life support until they get better, or the doctors simply can't find a relative close to them and, in a decision to save the hospital money and the misery of the patient, they pull the plug.

Medicine is not, and has never been, a practice to save lives. It is a practice to treat people. Saving lives has nothing to do with the profession, and it is absurd that medicine is held to such a high positive standard while ignoring that doctors, too, can let us die if they consider us a lost cause.

[Salus Maior]

I am so sorry about what you've had to endure. While I can't say I've been through the same, I have experienced things I'd call hopelessness and deep sadness and depression, and if you ever need someone to talk to, I will gladly give a listening ear.

Yes, that's my greatest criticism as well. The problem is that most of the people who would have Pro-Life sentiments (at least in the U.S) also tend to have opposition to any form of Socialism or institutionalized healthcare. You know, Republicans. They expect children to be born and then everything's fine. I know differently though. If a pro-life victory is to be achieved, there needs to be an overhaul in how we interact with the lower classes and mothers in general.

That's not my only problem with pro-life advocates.

My issue with them, from a medical standpoint, is that they glorify a practice that is not as glamorous as they think to begin with. Medicine is not in the business of saving lives. Doctors let patients die every day. Right now, even, I bet you someone is being pulled out of life support to die in the way they want, or because their family doesn't have the money to keep them on life support until they get better, or the doctors simply can't find a relative close to them and, in a decision to save the hospital money and the misery of the patient, they pull the plug.

Medicine is not, and has never been, a practice to save lives. It is a practice to treat people. Saving lives has nothing to do with the profession, and it is absurd that medicine is held to such a high positive standard while ignoring that doctors, too, can let us die if they consider us a lost cause.

I've never heard pro-life advocates say their pro life because they don't want medicine to be icky. And that's not what I'm saying either.

And notably, most treatments aren't out to explicitly destroy a person either. And no, pulling the plug isn't anywhere close to literally tearing apart an unborn infant.

[The Plutonian Empire]

While OP, my views and yours may be somewhat diametrically opposed (on abortion, certainly), I certainly can relate on some level to learning how to be more merciful to others. Because that is the only way to defeat hate, with mercy. We live in a world that is becoming increasingly politically divided, and that is driven apart by the mass media and by emotional appeals to demonize those who disagree with you. Thus, we can really only counter such attitudes by seeking to be kind when possible.

While my views on abortion have always been consistent, my approach has not been. I used to be rather vitriolic toward people who disagree with me, and now I have learned, with some guidance from teachers and from good people, how to consider others in a compassionate manner, rather than being entirely accusatory. Of course, I would be a hypocrite to say I am sweet and friendly 100% of the time. That is hardly the case. But it is what you and I can strive to be for others.

Thank you, and same here.

I find it odd that the OP started a thread with a theme of hate being bad (sort of) and self-discovery making one a less hateful person ... but is now willing to go on with debating abortion. Knowing surely, that abortion is one of the topics most likely to arouse hatred in the Generals.

Maybe the thread is really about nostalgia?

could I say the one thing I miss more than anything all the way back to 2005, is pages full of quote pyramids? I believe the quote pyramids, at cost only of taking up screen space, had the great virtue of showing who had been in a strand of the thread before, and what each argument made previously was against, and they prevented mindless repetition, and showcased the best one-on-one debates. Cutting pyramids so short has made General more of a chat site than a debate forum. Only posts on the last page or two get replies, and only two posters with great willpower (or personal rivalry towards each other) can keep up a one-on-one debate without being drowned out by shallow points based on their use of one word, or of an example chosen to illustrate their broader argument.

If General has gotten dumber overall, it's ultimately the fault of the users who post here. No rules or format system can make good debate out of bad debaters, or good humour out of bad comedians. But the (overly short) pyramids have encouraged a form of very shallow one-liner "debate" without which many bad posters would have no reason to come here, and it's thwarted good debating style (one-on-one for page after page) making those debaters more likely to leave. Of all the format changes over the years, the culling of the pyramids has done the most harm.

Even one more level on every pyramid would help. One more level would show whether a strand is the continuation of a one-on-one, or not. Ideally, there would be a default depth of six or so, to the pyramids displayed, and users could then customize what they see to be shorter or longer pyramids. I guess that would load the server pretty heavily though. I think long ago I suggested customizable pyramid depth and was told it was too heavy ... come to think of it, just about every suggestion I've ever made got shot down as "too much for the server" meanwhile all sorts of pointless eye candy has been added regardless of server load, ultimately I think it's because I'm just a Generalite and what I think would be good for NS is just what might be good for General, and doesn't account what gameplayers and roleplayers want. I admit that animations for their coat-of-arms, or short pyramids for the long diplomatic posts, probably suit their role-playing uses, and they shouldn't be denied because I find those things bad for General.

The timewarp I don't miss at all. Sometimes it would be hilarious, but far more often it was just confusing. It also got new users into trouble, as they'd often think it was the timewarping poster themselves who somehow "cheated" to get their post out of order.

Yeah, I wasn't quite planning to, so thanks for catching that. It's too easy for me to distract myself and go off topic.

I miss the quote pyramids too, yo.

As for my happiness or purpose in life? Edit: I have nothing anymore. The worldbuilding project that my NS nation is a part of is literally the only thing thats keeping me alive. The feelings of pure hopelessness I've had the past several months I would not wish on anyone.

Sadly, I am going through the same situation, plus I have a massive backlog of things I want to do, but unable to do so due to fatigue and yes, despair. I should be doing the things I need to do soon, because at present I am in a perilous state, living in a country where the stereotype of benefits claimants being "lazy people" prevails.

At best, I probably only have 7 to 12 years left to live, I don't want to have to bother with the fear of retiring in the same situation as I am now. Maybe I won't make it to 2020 if I remain in the UK, given that I have lost a lot of appetite, stopped sleeping properly, and increasingly self-harmed myself over the last few months.

That is the devastating impact of racial hatred.

That sucks. I live on SSI here in the states (a type of social/supplemental security for disabilities), and being in the most heavily conservative county in the state, the fear of judgement and being "lazy-shamed" is strong in me too. And I can relate to the self-harm too. :/

Being more to the right-of-center than anything else, I have to admit, OP, that you're not a unique breed of individual around these parts.

I, too, wish there were more civil discussions in which we all would get along. I, too, have had hard times with being vulnerable. It is that vulnerability that drove me to NS in the first place.

Now? Now I am in a better position, personally, so I am not as active in NSG as I was in the past. However, I still got a lot to do. I still have to, also, build my nation to the way I want it. That will be my last project in NS before pulling the plug on NSG and go back to nation roleplay.

Cheers! Another world builder to relate too!

As for my happiness or purpose in life? Edit: I have nothing anymore. The worldbuilding project that my NS nation is a part of is literally the only thing thats keeping me alive. The feelings of pure hopelessness I've had the past several months I would not wish on anyone.


The problem with the pro-life crowd, is that very few of them, if any, bother to think of the welfare of the kid AFTER they're born. How many kids have been saved from abortion, only to be neglected, abused, or sent to the wayside by the very same people who supposedly espouse their perfect value as a living being?

I am so sorry about what you've had to endure. While I can't say I've been through the same, I have experienced things I'd call hopelessness and deep sadness and depression, and if you ever need someone to talk to, I will gladly give a listening ear.

Yes, that's my greatest criticism as well. The problem is that most of the people who would have Pro-Life sentiments (at least in the U.S) also tend to have opposition to any form of Socialism or institutionalized healthcare. You know, Republicans. They expect children to be born and then everything's fine. I know differently though. If a pro-life victory is to be achieved, there needs to be an overhaul in how we interact with the lower classes and mothers in general.

Thank you! The more ears the better! Living on my own is lonely sometimes, roommates or not.

Yeah the hypocrisy in that is stunning, I agree. And hypocrisy is one of my biggest and fastest triggers.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's not my only problem with pro-life advocates.

My issue with them, from a medical standpoint, is that they glorify a practice that is not as glamorous as they think to begin with. Medicine is not in the business of saving lives. Doctors let patients die every day. Right now, even, I bet you someone is being pulled out of life support to die in the way they want, or because their family doesn't have the money to keep them on life support until they get better, or the doctors simply can't find a relative close to them and, in a decision to save the hospital money and the misery of the patient, they pull the plug.

Medicine is not, and has never been, a practice to save lives. It is a practice to treat people. Saving lives has nothing to do with the profession, and it is absurd that medicine is held to such a high positive standard while ignoring that doctors, too, can let us die if they consider us a lost cause.

I've never heard pro-life advocates say their pro life because they don't want medicine to be icky. And that's not what I'm saying either.

I'm pro-life, actually. I've heard these comments before. That medicine is supposed to save lives, not destroy them. That doctors should not be able to perform abortions, because they're supposed to be healers, not executioners.

I wasn't trying to imply you did. I was talking more in general, because I know many pro-life people who think this way, that medicine is not meant to be icky, and that, above all, they hold an unrealistic idea of medicine and health practice.

Thing with my position as a pro-life is, I am a moderate in that I wish to solve the social problems that push people to abort, rather than to outright ban it. Banning the practice won't do anything, as even my own country of origin can't keep a lid on its clandestine abortion rate. I come from a developing country which is merely one example of bad policy to stop abortions. And it is a harrowing experience which I understand because I saw it around me and in the news every day. The reason why I oppose pro-life in America is because I have those lessons, and I don't want to see the developed world commit the same mistake.

[Salus Maior]

I've never heard pro-life advocates say their pro life because they don't want medicine to be icky. And that's not what I'm saying either.

I'm pro-life, actually. I've heard these comments before. That medicine is supposed to save lives, not destroy them. That doctors should not be able to perform abortions, because they're supposed to be healers, not executioners.

I wasn't trying to imply you did. I was talking more in general, because I know many pro-life people who think this way, that medicine is not meant to be icky, and that, above all, they hold an unrealistic idea of medicine and health practice.

Thing with my position as a pro-life is, I am a moderate in that I wish to solve the social problems that push people to abort, rather than to outright ban it. Banning the practice won't do anything, as even my own country of origin can't keep a lid on its clandestine abortion rate.

Honestly, I don't see anything short of a ban really working. It needs to be a combination effort of dealing with social problems leading up to a more effective ban.

What country are you from, out of curiousity?

[Salus Maior]

Thank you! The more ears the better! Living on my own is lonely sometimes, roommates or not.

Yeah the hypocrisy in that is stunning, I agree. And hypocrisy is one of my biggest and fastest triggers.

Honestly, I'm convinced that hypocrisy is just part of the human condition. Everyone sets standards for themselves and they typically fall short.

And yes, it's one of my biggest triggers too

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And notably, most treatments aren't out to explicitly destroy a person either. And no, pulling the plug isn't anywhere close to literally tearing apart an unborn infant.

Oh please, spare me the details on how pulling the plug is not anywhere close to tearing apart an unborn infant. Death almost always, irrevocably, destroys a person biologically. Whether it is taking their life support away, or whether it is under the knife of a doctor during an abortion.

Both are going to die anyways. Your only objection is the manner in which either of them die. If this is the position which the pro-life crowd stands on, then you're only providing me with more reasons to not associate with your goals, agenda, or even reasoning.

Pro-life advocates need to realize that just because one manner of death is more icky than the other to them, it doesn't mean one of them is more humane than the other. There's nothing humane about letting people die, and yet it happens, and we can't stop it.

[Cedoria]

I'm fine with hatred if it's used well. Hate can be very productive, and a spur too all kinds of positive actions.

Hatred of slavery, diseases and plagues was probably a great help in ridding us of all manner of those things. As it should be. Hatred of tyranny or injustice compels us too prosecute war criminals and despots.

I'm fine with any hatred that achieves such results. As I said, when used properly, hatred can be a very useful and powerful spur to all kinds of action.

I'm not big on this whole 'love thine enemies' nonsense, if I loved them, they wouldn't be my enemies in the first place, as I've argued here before. But my hatred of some of those I consider my enemies and their actions is a powerful spur for getting up in the morning and doing what I can too thwart them.

Hatred should have good reason, but if it does, nothing wrong with it, it's as necessary an emotion as love. All this "Love beats Hate" is fairly mushy nonsense, both are necessary to a degree I think, and both are part of being human.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm pro-life, actually. I've heard these comments before. That medicine is supposed to save lives, not destroy them. That doctors should not be able to perform abortions, because they're supposed to be healers, not executioners.

I wasn't trying to imply you did. I was talking more in general, because I know many pro-life people who think this way, that medicine is not meant to be icky, and that, above all, they hold an unrealistic idea of medicine and health practice.

Thing with my position as a pro-life is, I am a moderate in that I wish to solve the social problems that push people to abort, rather than to outright ban it. Banning the practice won't do anything, as even my own country of origin can't keep a lid on its clandestine abortion rate.

Honestly, I don't see anything short of a ban really working. It needs to be a combination effort of dealing with social problems leading up to a more effective ban.

What country are you from, out of curiousity?

El Salvador, tiny country in Central America where abortion is literally against the constitution of the country.

Bans do not work. There's nothing about a prohibition on abortion that works. You won't stop abortions by wishing them away by law.

[Cedoria]

Honestly, I don't see anything short of a ban really working. It needs to be a combination effort of dealing with social problems leading up to a more effective ban.

What country are you from, out of curiousity?

El Salvador, tiny country in Central America where abortion is literally against the constitution of the country.

Bans do not work. There's nothing about a prohibition on abortion that works. You won't stop abortions by wishing them away by law.

You sound by far, one of the more rational of the anti-female crowd I have heard debate this issue (I will not unjustly dignify the position by calling it 'pro-life').


Kudos to you for recognising the stupidity of legal prohibition, I only wish more of your fellows would make such a rational conclusion, given the mounds of evidence in favour of it.

[Salus Maior]

And notably, most treatments aren't out to explicitly destroy a person either. And no, pulling the plug isn't anywhere close to literally tearing apart an unborn infant.

Oh please, spare me the details on how pulling the plug is not anywhere close to tearing apart an unborn infant. Death almost always, irrevocably, destroys a person biologically. Whether it is taking their life support away, or whether it is under the knife of a doctor during an abortion.

Both are going to die anyways. Your only objection is the manner in which either of them die. If this is the position which the pro-life crowd stands on, then you're only providing me with more reasons to not associate with your goals, agenda, or even reasoning.

Pro-life advocates need to realize that just because one manner of death is more icky than the other to them, it doesn't mean one of them is more humane than the other. There's nothing humane about letting people die, and yet it happens, and we can't stop it.

So we can't criticize the methods around abortion now?

You're really getting worked up over nothing. If you're going to dump the idea that the unborn are worth protecting because people criticize the methods, and you don't like it for whatever reason, then fine, go.

Obviously, there's more behind what I believe as a pro-lifer than that.

[Salus Maior]

El Salvador, tiny country in Central America where abortion is literally against the constitution of the country.

Bans do not work. There's nothing about a prohibition on abortion that works. You won't stop abortions by wishing them away by law.

You sound by far, one of the more rational of the anti-female crowd I have heard debate this issue (I will not unjustly dignify the position by calling it 'pro-life').


Kudos to you for recognising the stupidity of legal prohibition, I only wish more of your fellows would make such a rational conclusion, given the mounds of evidence in favour of it.

Women get hurt by abortion too, bub. And many in the pro-life movement are women so cut the "anti-female" shtick.

[Lexicor]

I understand and empathize with the pro-life position on abortion. The sanctity of life; the belief that every life is of intrinsic value in the eyes of God [whether one believes in one or not, this is where the concept stems from] is an immutable pillar of Western civilization. Since the child [and in a religious context, the purpose of sex is to conceive the child, it is a sin of the flesh otherwise], has not been corrupted by the vices of the world, the sanctity of a child's life holds an emphasized importance. Christianity in particular is rife with symbolism that emphatically states and restates these fundamental and axiomatic concepts.

The argument that put me square in the pro-choice camp was an argument from uncertainty. We don't know at what point a fetus becomes sentient [we know approximately when a fetus achieves viability outside the whom, which Roe vs Wade in the United States and R. vs Morgentaler (1986) in Canada both take note of]. We cannot be certain when a fetus is alive, but we know for a fact that the mother is alive and that the mother's right to bodily integrity must be preserved.

The pro-life camp is by and in large not a woman hating, theocratic and bigoted one. There are extremists there, just as there are AntiFa fuckwits smashing windows and rioting on campuses. When one attempts to make an opponents case better than they can themselves, one loses the hate and gets an understanding.

[Salus Maior]

Honestly, I don't see anything short of a ban really working. It needs to be a combination effort of dealing with social problems leading up to a more effective ban.

What country are you from, out of curiousity?

El Salvador, tiny country in Central America where abortion is literally against the constitution of the country.

Bans do not work. There's nothing about a prohibition on abortion that works. You won't stop abortions by wishing them away by law.

Most countries that ban also don't do anything else to support it. But I'll concede for now.

[Cedoria]

You sound by far, one of the more rational of the anti-female crowd I have heard debate this issue (I will not unjustly dignify the position by calling it 'pro-life').


Kudos to you for recognising the stupidity of legal prohibition, I only wish more of your fellows would make such a rational conclusion, given the mounds of evidence in favour of it.

Women get hurt by abortion too, bub. And many in the pro-life movement are women so cut the "anti-female" shtick.

So? The fact there are women who support it does not mean it is not in fact anti-female.

There are women who are members of very restrictive Abrahamic religions too, that doesn't mean said sects of said faiths are not enormously repressive towards them.

Thanks, but you don't get too dictate to me how I frame the argument, I see it as an anti-woman position, and have always maintained it is. Whether some women agree or support it or not is irrelevant. Sometimes people are stupid and support positions that are no good for them, it happens, probably too most of us.

[Cedoria]

I understand and empathize with the pro-life position on abortion. The sanctity of life; the belief that every life is of intrinsic value in the eyes of God [whether one believes in one or not, this is where the concept stems from] is an immutable pillar of Western civilization. Since the child [and in a religious context, the purpose of sex is to conceive the child, it is a sin of the flesh otherwise], has not been corrupted by the vices of the world, the sanctity of a child's life holds an emphasized importance. Christianity in particular is rife with symbolism that emphatically states and restates these fundamental and axiomatic concepts.

The argument that put me square in the pro-choice camp was an argument from uncertainty. We don't know at what point a fetus becomes sentient [we know approximately when a fetus achieves viability outside the whom, which Roe vs Wade in the United States and R. vs Morgentaler (1986) in Canada both take note of]. We cannot be certain when a fetus is alive, but we know for a fact that the mother is alive and that the mother's right to bodily integrity must be preserved.

The pro-life camp is by and in large not a woman hating, theocratic and bigoted one. There are extremists there, just as there are AntiFa fuckwits smashing windows and rioting on campuses. When one attempts to make an opponents case better than they can themselves, one loses the hate and gets an understanding.

Agree with much of this, for me it's partially an argument of uncertainty and partially of preference. Preference meaning that, if it comes down to a question between the right of an already independently living, thinking human, against an unborn, not yet fully formed or developed unborn one, I would argue the right of the human already here takes precedence. That's assuming you accept that most unborn fetuses are life already (which I mostly don't, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did in this case). In terms of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest many, it seems the more sensible position.

I would disagree that by and large the 'pro-life' camp are not that. Most of the ones I've had the misfortune of encountering are, in addition to being extreme hypocrites by being pro-death penalty among other such things. There are a few exceptions I could name, but not many.

[Salus Maior]

Women get hurt by abortion too, bub. And many in the pro-life movement are women so cut the "anti-female" shtick.

So? The fact there are women who support it does not mean it is not in fact anti-female.

There are women who are members of very restrictive Abrahamic religions too, that doesn't mean said sects of said faiths are not enormously repressive towards them.

Thanks, but you don't get too dictate to me how I frame the argument, I see it as an anti-woman position, and have always maintained it is. Whether some women agree or support it or not is irrelevant. Sometimes people are stupid and support positions that are no good for them, it happens, probably too most of us.

I don't think women need you to decide what's good for them. Nevermind that we're talking about a group like it's a monolith and not a horde of individuals with different views and values in each. You know, like men.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So we can't criticize the methods around abortion now?

You're really getting worked up over nothing. If you're going to dump the idea that the unborn are worth protecting because people criticize the methods, and you don't like it for whatever reason, then fine, go.

Obviously, there's more behind what I believe as a pro-lifer than that.

Your position on the point we're discussing is literally "it's sad and gruesome what they do to unborn babies". There's nothing about death that's pretty. This is the first thing pro-life advocates need to realize. I say that as someone who is actually on the side of reducing abortions.

Death is death, there's nothing about it that you can, reasonably, argue about both methods of death being more icky than the other. They're both icky. They're both people dying. The basic premise behind death is that it is never pretty, whether you're shellshocked by a mine and your innards go flying everywhere, whether a doctor amputates just enough of your limbs and tosses them in the trash or uses them as dissection practice, whether you have the plug pulled on you, or you abort a child by tearing them limb by limb. It really makes no difference.

Death is something the pro-life crowd needs to acquaint themselves better with before talking about life. Death is death, regardless of how you want to define your method of death, it is still death. Understanding how people die helps to understand that death is never pretty, and that death happens anyways. The problem with abortion is not that of a human failure to prevent death because death happens anyways, it's a social failure to not protect life. As such, the responsibility of an undue abortion falls on every single one of us who didn't do anything to help that person and we left them to their luck, not to the person themselves. Abortion is a social failure of a highly individualistic, "fuck you I got mine" culture, not a personal failure.

[The Feylands]

You sound by far, one of the more rational of the anti-female crowd I have heard debate this issue (I will not unjustly dignify the position by calling it 'pro-life').


Kudos to you for recognising the stupidity of legal prohibition, I only wish more of your fellows would make such a rational conclusion, given the mounds of evidence in favour of it.

Yeah, because again pressuring women to murder their babies and get both psychological and physical scars for life so that men can run around and have sex with everyone with breasts without any consequence is not an "anti-female" position, no way.

And yes, there is a big difference between pulling the plug on somebody on life support and the brutal slaughter of a tiny human being. If you'd see someone get executed by literally tearing her arms and legs and body apart with a chainsaw, at least I'd really hope you'd react to that than pulling a plug and not prolonging someone's suffering.

I agree that society needs to be better at taking care of women and children after birth as well. I feel that the fact that we fail in that regard probably has a lot to do with urbanization and the loss of natural, local communities. I might have a little different take on this from my position: for me, both big government and big capitalism are two sides of the same coin, viewing people and nature as nothing but an identityless consumer or consumer goods. I'm all for there being a basic safety for everyone, but I think that ideally the civil society could handle these difficult cases better. I don't think this kind of natural solidarity can come by anything else than a society built on natural communities and a common culture and heritage... and sadly, to me it looks like large parts of the West isn't exactly moving in that direction.

I don't think women need you to decide what's good for them. Nevermind that we're talking about a group like it's a monolith and not a horde of individuals with different views and values in each. You know, like men.

Amen!

[Salus Maior]

So we can't criticize the methods around abortion now?

You're really getting worked up over nothing. If you're going to dump the idea that the unborn are worth protecting because people criticize the methods, and you don't like it for whatever reason, then fine, go.

Obviously, there's more behind what I believe as a pro-lifer than that.

Your position on the point we're discussing is literally "it's sad and gruesome what they do to unborn babies". There's nothing about death that's pretty. This is the first thing pro-life advocates need to realize. I say that as someone who is actually on the side of reducing abortions.

Death is death, there's nothing about it that you can, reasonably, argue about both methods of death being more icky than the other. They're both icky. They're both people dying. The basic premise behind death is that it is never pretty, whether you're shellshocked by a mine and your innards go flying everywhere, whether a doctor amputates just enough of your limbs and tosses them in the trash or uses them as dissection practice, whether you have the plug pulled on you, or you abort a child by tearing them limb by limb. It really makes no difference.

Death is something the pro-life crowd needs to acquaint themselves better with before talking about life. Death is death, regardless of how you want to define your method of death, it is still death. Understanding how people die helps to understand that death is never pretty, and that death happens anyways. The problem with abortion is not that of a human failure to prevent death because death happens anyways, it's a social failure to not protect life. As such, the responsibility of an undue abortion falls on every single one of us who didn't do anything to help that person and we left them to their luck, not to the person themselves. Abortion is a social failure, not a personal failure.

Alright, I better understand what you were saying now. And I agree.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yeah, because again pressuring women to murder their babies and get both psychological and physical scars for life so that men can run around and have sex with everyone with breasts without any consequence is not an "anti-female" position, no way.

And yes, there is a big difference between pulling the plug on somebody on life support and the brutal slaughter of a tiny human being. If you'd see someone get executed by literally tearing her arms and legs and body apart with a chainsaw, at least I'd really hope you'd react to that than pulling a plug and not prolonging someone suffering.

There's literally no difference between one and the other, in my opinion.

It sounds callous, my response, towards death, but it really isn't. Death is inevitable, the manner of death isn't going to make that person "less dead" in our eyes. The day I die, I know it won't be pretty. I will shit myself, I will smell bad, I will suffer through my last moments. Because the body is averse to death. Before death there is suffering, because none of us, biologically, wish to die, and it hurts. It always hurts. And it is never a pretty sight to behold, the death of someone.

Again, like I told Salus, the problem with abortion is not a medical one. Hell is not even a "woman" problem. Or a death problem (because people die anyways). It is a social problem. I have spoken out against abortion before, but not as someone who thinks women should keep their legs closed and they must be punished by having a baby for being whores. On the contrary, I think abortion is a social failure from a highly individualistic culture where nobody cares about other people. Because only someone who can say "fuck you, I got mine" can be so callous as to not see around them that women do need help, and if the lesser ones among us had the help they needed, there wouldn't be as many social failures as there are currently, and abortion wouldn't be as socially acceptable to mitigate a potential problem as it is, currently.

A safety net is important not because people are poor in and of themselves, but because it really helps when you're not thinking about whether or not you're going to have anything to eat, or a roof over your head, tomorrow.

[Salus Maior]

I understand and empathize with the pro-life position on abortion. The sanctity of life; the belief that every life is of intrinsic value in the eyes of God [whether one believes in one or not, this is where the concept stems from] is an immutable pillar of Western civilization. Since the child [and in a religious context, the purpose of sex is to conceive the child, it is a sin of the flesh otherwise], has not been corrupted by the vices of the world, the sanctity of a child's life holds an emphasized importance. Christianity in particular is rife with symbolism that emphatically states and restates these fundamental and axiomatic concepts.

The Pro-Life movement is not exclusively religious. I've met a good few agnostic and atheist pro-lifers in my time.

[Cedoria]

You sound by far, one of the more rational of the anti-female crowd I have heard debate this issue (I will not unjustly dignify the position by calling it 'pro-life').


Kudos to you for recognising the stupidity of legal prohibition, I only wish more of your fellows would make such a rational conclusion, given the mounds of evidence in favour of it.

Yeah, because again pressuring women to murder their babies and get both psychological and physical scars for life so that men can run around and have sex with everyone with breasts without any consequence is not an "anti-female" position, no way.

And yes, there is a big difference between pulling the plug on somebody on life support and the brutal slaughter of a tiny human being. If you'd see someone get executed by literally tearing her arms and legs and body apart with a chainsaw, at least I'd really hope you'd react to that than pulling a plug and not prolonging someone's suffering.

I agree that society needs to be better at taking care of women and children after birth as well. I feel that the fact that we fail in that regard probably has a lot to do with urbanization and the loss of natural, local communities. I might have a little different take on this from my position: for me, both big government and big capitalism are two sides of the same coin, viewing people and nature as nothing but an identityless consumer or consumer goods. I'm all for there being a basic safety for everyone, but I think that ideally the civil society could handle these difficult cases better. I don't think this kind of natural solidarity can come by anything else than a society built on natural communities and a common culture and heritage... and sadly, to me it looks like large parts of the West isn't exactly moving in that direction.

I don't think women need you to decide what's good for them. Nevermind that we're talking about a group like it's a monolith and not a horde of individuals with different views and values in each. You know, like men.

Amen!

For somebody who seems to be implying my case is a strawman, you're doing an awful lot of that yourself in the first paragraph. What on Earth possessed you too think that I'm in favour of pressuring women to remove fetuses against their will? That's pretty much the precise antithesis of what I'm advocating. Understand that before trying to debate me again please. Pro-Choice means just that, Choice. You completely misunderstanding the essence of the case doesn't speak well for your ability to argue the other facets of it. Especially since the situation in pro-choice legal jurisdictions is not remotely like the hypothetical you are describing. Talk about dream world all you like, in the REAl world, it's not very likely for this too occur.

I'm not advocating deciding what's good for them, the "Pro-Life' types are, I'm advocating that women, individually, should decide what is good for them. Again, misunderstanding the basic facts of my argument, while being utterly (and I hope willfully), blind to the implications of your own position doesn't bode well for this kind of argument.

I'm also not in favour of other people (like those who share your position), having her KEEP the child against her will. If you can't see that the second of these is as bad as the first well, I can't help you. The reality is both of those are too be resisted.

The rest of what you said, whilst generally vague and unspecific, is completely fine. A little bit more practical help instead of just platitudes would be of more assistance to those around whom this discussion centers (that's not a critique of you personally, only a general observation, for all I know you do much more practical stuff in that area:)

But we are thread-jacking, so I'll try and avoid responses in this area from hereon, I've said my piece:)

[Nulla Bellum]

Feeling nostalgic, I browsed a few pages of NSG again after some long absence. The only noteworthy thread I found was that Generation Z thread now on Page 8 or so. It wasn't long before finding several posts openly declaring they proudly consume themselves in their embrace of pure hate. Call me a triggered leftie, but, after a bunch of self discovery over the past 10 years, it only further resolves my own further feelings of contempt for some ideologies. My phone's wifi hotspot trollingly being named "Republicans Are Pure Evil" is one such example of my feelings.

Anyways, in 2013, I realized myself to actually be a bisexual myself, for real. I can't remember if I made jokes about it on NS before, because my sexy post count of 8,000 was tragically nuked with the loss of the Jolt Forums, so I have no archive to search for evidence. Speaking of which, I never understood some people's hate for Jolt. But whatever.

But all I know is that back then, I myself was seething with much more hate than I do now. "I hate abortion", "I hate 'lesbonazis'", or whatever hate you can come up with using whatever inappropriate slur I pulled out of my ass for whatever group of people or ideology I have. Looking back on all that hate I had, it is not who I want to be. I don't like hating on people anymore. Especially since a large part of my dislike of lesbians back then I now realize was probably a crappy way to project my internal feelings. Am I still guilty of some hate? Yes. But at the ripe old fossil fuel age of 32, I can say with experience that embracing all-consuming hate is a pretty crappy rabbit hole to dig into. In the meantime, I certainly quit hating on the LGBT, and I especially quit hating on abortion...

Because I too, can share my hate for prolonged high pitched screaming that only serves to make my ears react like nails on chalkboard. #ForeverChildFree

But while I do my best to refrain from hate towards groups of people, the news cycles these days makes it especially hard. I certainly deleted twitter and reduced my TV news consumption. Because I don't need more hate. I see a lot of it. I already dislike right-wing ideology simply because it is so consumed by hate. Can't we all get along? (Image)

But, as a bisexual who still clings on to his free love freedom ideologies from 10 years ago, and I certainly try not to hate on people anymore, and while I certainly hope some NSG'ers rethink their embracement of hate, it's pretty damn hard to like a political party whose only purpose in life is to have me dead.

I am not one to dismiss or try to invalidate the feelings of others, even their hateful.feelings. I'm roughly 15 years older than you and although I don't have a past here at NS to look back upon, I can remember the asshole I was at ages 17, 27, and 37 and the emotional growth that has occured over that time. You are just now entering "the middle of your life." And you seem, just from this one post, to be entering it with an acquired maturity that I can assure you will serve you well. Choose your battles. Trying to reason with other's emotional emissions is ultimately futile. You will change your socks far more often than you will change someone else's mind, much less the world. Control is an illusion. All you can do with a hater is make them hate in solitude. You're on the right path because it is YOUR path. Bless yourself.

[Luminesa]

I understand and empathize with the pro-life position on abortion. The sanctity of life; the belief that every life is of intrinsic value in the eyes of God [whether one believes in one or not, this is where the concept stems from] is an immutable pillar of Western civilization. Since the child [and in a religious context, the purpose of sex is to conceive the child, it is a sin of the flesh otherwise], has not been corrupted by the vices of the world, the sanctity of a child's life holds an emphasized importance. Christianity in particular is rife with symbolism that emphatically states and restates these fundamental and axiomatic concepts.

The argument that put me square in the pro-choice camp was an argument from uncertainty. We don't know at what point a fetus becomes sentient [we know approximately when a fetus achieves viability outside the whom, which Roe vs Wade in the United States and R. vs Morgentaler (1986) in Canada both take note of]. We cannot be certain when a fetus is alive, but we know for a fact that the mother is alive and that the mother's right to bodily integrity must be preserved.

The pro-life camp is by and in large not a woman hating, theocratic and bigoted one. There are extremists there, just as there are AntiFa fuckwits smashing windows and rioting on campuses. When one attempts to make an opponents case better than they can themselves, one loses the hate and gets an understanding.

Agree with much of this, for me it's partially an argument of uncertainty and partially of preference. Preference meaning that, if it comes down to a question between the right of an already independently living, thinking human, against an unborn, not yet fully formed or developed unborn one, I would argue the right of the human already here takes precedence. That's assuming you accept that most unborn fetuses are life already (which I mostly don't, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did in this case). In terms of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest many, it seems the more sensible position.

I would disagree that by and large the 'pro-life' camp are not that. Most of the ones I've had the misfortune of encountering are, in addition to being extreme hypocrites by being pro-death penalty among other such things. There are a few exceptions I could name, but not many.

It is strange how many politicians push the death penalty while being against abortion. It's...very inconsistent. If one claims to support life, they should do so at every stage, in every situation. It's not meant to be something purely political. It is meant to be a way-of-life, being pro-life.