Not a subject I usually discuss with anyone other than my wife. But...you threw down the gauntlet, and I'm in a rather testy mood about a lot of things tonight after a full day of SUCK at work. So, I'm gonna' pick it up and throw down myself. With due respect and affection for all, and animus toward none. Except, perhaps, for those whose…
Not a subject I usually discuss with anyone other than my wife. But...you threw down the gauntlet, and I'm in a rather testy mood about a lot of things tonight after a full day of SUCK at work. So, I'm gonna' pick it up and throw down myself. With due respect and affection for all, and animus toward none. Except, perhaps, for those whose concern for lives other than their own ends at their front doorstep and in the delivery room with babies born into desperate circumstances pulling themselves up by the straps of their own baby booties. If they're lucky enough to have any. Not too fond of the simply pro-birth crowd, whatever their political tribe, religious leanings or lack thereof.
Like so many people, I have mixed feelings about this issue. I acknowledge the argument of " If it's not life, what is it?" cannot be dismissed out of hand, or at this time really be answered by anything other than one's own conscience. Sorry, Science, I fear your distinctions between zygotes, feti and human beings are a bit inadequate to resolve this issue, and likely will be for...ever? Or at least until the scientists laboring up one side of the Mountain of Truth run headlong into the theologians and philosophers clambering up the other side as they all scramble over the final crest, only to find themselves standing face to face in the same place. Then, perhaps, we'll have an answer satisfying to all. But until then...
I have only this to add to the discussion, since all I have to say about what I believe has been said by others over and over all over the place ad infinitum. But I don't hear this position too often, and the more I think about it, the more merit I see in it. Will probably catch flak for it. Don't care. Testiness has been duly noted.
I think it might be a good idea if all the men - and I mean ALL THE MEN - who feel compelled to be the arbiters of right and wrong on this issue shut up and let the women who have the biggest stake in it and the more valid claim to the right to sort it out...sort it out.
Sorry, boys, but our share in the procreation process from 0 to 9 months doesn't amount to much, regardless of circumstance or intent, at least not enough that I don't see male dominated decision-making institutions as stacked decks on this one. I don't think there's anything more uniquely 'female' than gestation and birth. And while I know nothing of what this is like in any meaningful way beyond trying to be a supportive husband as each of my daughters were created and brought into this world by their mother, I'm pretty sure I'd resent the bloody hell out of any man not just telling me, but deciding for me what I should or shouldn't do in this regard if I were a woman, rich or poor or of whatever circumstance, contemplating an unintended pregnancy.
Of course, there is another answer. We could actually make an effort to be a life affirming society and country with values deeper than having the largest thin screen TV on the wall or the latest go-faster laptop in our laps. Or the smartest phone or latest whatever-it-is. We could put some serious money and serious effort into creating a society in which life - all life - is a slightly higher priority than anyone's bottom line, one in which fewer and fewer women would see abortion as their only or best alternative. It would cost us all something. Nothing such as this is free. But if we were to pick up that gauntlet and run with it, the benefit to all would be incalculable, one such benefit being that perhaps abortion would become so rare that when one day someone asks Do we really have to talk about abortion?, the answer will be no. No, we don't.
But don't dash off any emails or messages to politicians demanding that they pursue this agenda. Because the only way this ever happens is if we demand it of ourselves first.
I don’t buy the “no man should have any say” position. If men are the losers who aren’t going to step up and support the child, then it would stand to reason they’d all be pro choice, no?
Sorry, BC, I'm not following too well here. You don't agree with me, and that's fine. But I'm not quite making the connection between your 1st sentence and the second about deadbeat dads, which I assume is the explanation as to why you don't agree. Guess I'm just a little dense, but I'd like to understand what you're saying, so if you have a minute and wouldn't mind, maybe you could elaborate a bit. Not looking for an argument of a fight. Asking in good faith.
A common pro choice argument: If women are forced to have children, then society better step up to the plate to ensure the child doesn’t live in poverty. That assumes men aren’t going to support the child so if that’s the case, men would tend to be pro choice so why wouldn’t women WANT men to have a say? They’re more likely to be on their side, no?
OK. I follow you now. Sorry about the confusion. What you say makes some sense from the perspective of one side gaining more support. I was looking at it from the standpoint of if ever there was a "women's issue", this is one that has to be near or at the top of the list for the majority of them, and I felt it made more sense for them to sort it out and resolve it, since they would be affected more than anyone else. Wasn't really advocating for one side or the other in that regard.
These are good thoughts... and I'm even going to be good and pocket my challenge to the Mountain of Truth claim there. Put in a pin in that for another day.
I always hesitate to bring it up because so few modern pro-lifers fit this mold, but there remain a small number of what one might call "wicked church lady" types, you know the ones. Victorian caricatures who are motivated to be oppose abortion primarily by schaudenfraude and the desire to take vengeance on anyone who has offended their long outdated sensitivities. People who want to tear down and destroy "sinners" rather than treat them with grace and mercy. Against this type of person I pledge my undying animosity.
Oh hell, C, I read most all your stuff here and elsewhere, and you're 'good' even when you're *bad*!! ;-) Glad you found a little something worthwhile in what I said.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think we got into a back and forth about something similar once before somewhere else. It's been quite a while, so it may have been someone else. I just remember it went on for a while until 'a pin' had to be stuck in it due to mutual time constraints. But for now, I'll say the 'mountain' thing's more a mental construct for me that I sometimes use to try to make a point than an outright claim. But would be happy to pull that pin when the opportunity presents. Would probably be rather enjoyable.
As to that pledge, I'm all in on that one with you, my friend. Those who can only stand tall by trying to put others on their knees really, really gets my motor running. Have had to work elbow to elbow with a couple of guys like this for long periods of time IRL. Hoo boy! A testament to my restraint and somewhat good sense that I'm typing this from my couch and not on a cot in an 8 x 10 somewhere.
Well, I suppose we could take the pin out a little, and I believe you are correct that this is round two. Suffice to say I think the scientists got well ahead of the theologians on the Mountain of Truth and caused an avalanche that swept most of the theologians right off the mountain. Many are now at the very bottom of the hill and have taken to digging instead of climbing. Those that remain are bereft of gear and the guide ropes have been swept away… and the metaphor has been strained beyond all recognition (by me I mean) at this point!
Yeah, reading this I realize it was you. Cool. Won't torque the metaphor any more myself except to say I won't gainsay the point you make, since science has sort of taken a hammer to religion and theology in a lot of ways and put the truth seekers there in what seems a defensive rather than expansive mode. Which I guess is a pretty natural reaction on their part, all things considered. And that makes me a bit sad, as I've never viewed 'truth seeking' in either camp as being a mutually exclusive enterprise.
I don't know, we all ultimately have to live and travel through life by our own lights. But a little extra candle power from someone somewhere else often helps to better illuminate the trail. Even a few photons from an exchange like this one. Shine on.
For sure - and even when we end up in a different spot it’s both fun and illuminating to mark out the contours of the disagreement. I do view them as mutually exclusive for all the reason that better thinkers and sharper minds have noted, but I can understand why folks take the other side of that argument.
Ultimately I don’t see how the theological way of knowing can possibly illuminate in a disenchanted world. It requires a bit of magic that cannot exist under the bright lights of reason.
Now, we’re all mostly stumbling in the dark… but that’s why I love these two quotes from HL Mencken so much:
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.”
“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.“
Like the quotes...have heard the one about the cat in the dark (always brings a smile), but not the other, which rings pretty true.
There are plenty of better thinkers, smarter minds and more articulate voices than mine out there. And that's why I don't insist that my view is the only correct one in matters such as this, and never begrudge others their beliefs, however different from mine they may be. Some follow reason and rigid epistemological discipline exclusively. Others, like myself, believe in and depend on reason to guide their daily lives but still believe and have faith in things reason alone cannot explain. The cause of this varies by individual, I suppose. I can't really make a 'reasoned' argument about why I have faith in and believe the things of a religious nature that I do, since there's no scientific proof or rigid logic for them.
But what I can say is that I don't 'believe' because I was taught to in Sunday school or church (BTW...been absent from the pew for a long time now for a number of reasons.) Or anywhere else, for that matter. Rather, my belief and faith (or 'magic', if you will) is the result of the sum total of my life's physical, mental and emotional experiences. I sometimes question some of its parameters, but I never doubt its essence. And it is the fact that I'm willing to question some facets of my own beliefs from time to time that allows me to be open to hearing of and learning about the beliefs of others and the explanations for them.
One thing we can probably agree on is that with all that stumbling around in the dark, we're all going to stub our toes now and then, which can sometimes be a bit painful, a common human experience we share even when our beliefs about other things differ.
Not a subject I usually discuss with anyone other than my wife. But...you threw down the gauntlet, and I'm in a rather testy mood about a lot of things tonight after a full day of SUCK at work. So, I'm gonna' pick it up and throw down myself. With due respect and affection for all, and animus toward none. Except, perhaps, for those whose concern for lives other than their own ends at their front doorstep and in the delivery room with babies born into desperate circumstances pulling themselves up by the straps of their own baby booties. If they're lucky enough to have any. Not too fond of the simply pro-birth crowd, whatever their political tribe, religious leanings or lack thereof.
Like so many people, I have mixed feelings about this issue. I acknowledge the argument of " If it's not life, what is it?" cannot be dismissed out of hand, or at this time really be answered by anything other than one's own conscience. Sorry, Science, I fear your distinctions between zygotes, feti and human beings are a bit inadequate to resolve this issue, and likely will be for...ever? Or at least until the scientists laboring up one side of the Mountain of Truth run headlong into the theologians and philosophers clambering up the other side as they all scramble over the final crest, only to find themselves standing face to face in the same place. Then, perhaps, we'll have an answer satisfying to all. But until then...
I have only this to add to the discussion, since all I have to say about what I believe has been said by others over and over all over the place ad infinitum. But I don't hear this position too often, and the more I think about it, the more merit I see in it. Will probably catch flak for it. Don't care. Testiness has been duly noted.
I think it might be a good idea if all the men - and I mean ALL THE MEN - who feel compelled to be the arbiters of right and wrong on this issue shut up and let the women who have the biggest stake in it and the more valid claim to the right to sort it out...sort it out.
Sorry, boys, but our share in the procreation process from 0 to 9 months doesn't amount to much, regardless of circumstance or intent, at least not enough that I don't see male dominated decision-making institutions as stacked decks on this one. I don't think there's anything more uniquely 'female' than gestation and birth. And while I know nothing of what this is like in any meaningful way beyond trying to be a supportive husband as each of my daughters were created and brought into this world by their mother, I'm pretty sure I'd resent the bloody hell out of any man not just telling me, but deciding for me what I should or shouldn't do in this regard if I were a woman, rich or poor or of whatever circumstance, contemplating an unintended pregnancy.
Of course, there is another answer. We could actually make an effort to be a life affirming society and country with values deeper than having the largest thin screen TV on the wall or the latest go-faster laptop in our laps. Or the smartest phone or latest whatever-it-is. We could put some serious money and serious effort into creating a society in which life - all life - is a slightly higher priority than anyone's bottom line, one in which fewer and fewer women would see abortion as their only or best alternative. It would cost us all something. Nothing such as this is free. But if we were to pick up that gauntlet and run with it, the benefit to all would be incalculable, one such benefit being that perhaps abortion would become so rare that when one day someone asks Do we really have to talk about abortion?, the answer will be no. No, we don't.
But don't dash off any emails or messages to politicians demanding that they pursue this agenda. Because the only way this ever happens is if we demand it of ourselves first.
Good read M. Better points. Thanks.
I don’t buy the “no man should have any say” position. If men are the losers who aren’t going to step up and support the child, then it would stand to reason they’d all be pro choice, no?
Sorry, BC, I'm not following too well here. You don't agree with me, and that's fine. But I'm not quite making the connection between your 1st sentence and the second about deadbeat dads, which I assume is the explanation as to why you don't agree. Guess I'm just a little dense, but I'd like to understand what you're saying, so if you have a minute and wouldn't mind, maybe you could elaborate a bit. Not looking for an argument of a fight. Asking in good faith.
A common pro choice argument: If women are forced to have children, then society better step up to the plate to ensure the child doesn’t live in poverty. That assumes men aren’t going to support the child so if that’s the case, men would tend to be pro choice so why wouldn’t women WANT men to have a say? They’re more likely to be on their side, no?
OK. I follow you now. Sorry about the confusion. What you say makes some sense from the perspective of one side gaining more support. I was looking at it from the standpoint of if ever there was a "women's issue", this is one that has to be near or at the top of the list for the majority of them, and I felt it made more sense for them to sort it out and resolve it, since they would be affected more than anyone else. Wasn't really advocating for one side or the other in that regard.
These are good thoughts... and I'm even going to be good and pocket my challenge to the Mountain of Truth claim there. Put in a pin in that for another day.
I always hesitate to bring it up because so few modern pro-lifers fit this mold, but there remain a small number of what one might call "wicked church lady" types, you know the ones. Victorian caricatures who are motivated to be oppose abortion primarily by schaudenfraude and the desire to take vengeance on anyone who has offended their long outdated sensitivities. People who want to tear down and destroy "sinners" rather than treat them with grace and mercy. Against this type of person I pledge my undying animosity.
Oh hell, C, I read most all your stuff here and elsewhere, and you're 'good' even when you're *bad*!! ;-) Glad you found a little something worthwhile in what I said.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think we got into a back and forth about something similar once before somewhere else. It's been quite a while, so it may have been someone else. I just remember it went on for a while until 'a pin' had to be stuck in it due to mutual time constraints. But for now, I'll say the 'mountain' thing's more a mental construct for me that I sometimes use to try to make a point than an outright claim. But would be happy to pull that pin when the opportunity presents. Would probably be rather enjoyable.
As to that pledge, I'm all in on that one with you, my friend. Those who can only stand tall by trying to put others on their knees really, really gets my motor running. Have had to work elbow to elbow with a couple of guys like this for long periods of time IRL. Hoo boy! A testament to my restraint and somewhat good sense that I'm typing this from my couch and not on a cot in an 8 x 10 somewhere.
Well, I suppose we could take the pin out a little, and I believe you are correct that this is round two. Suffice to say I think the scientists got well ahead of the theologians on the Mountain of Truth and caused an avalanche that swept most of the theologians right off the mountain. Many are now at the very bottom of the hill and have taken to digging instead of climbing. Those that remain are bereft of gear and the guide ropes have been swept away… and the metaphor has been strained beyond all recognition (by me I mean) at this point!
Yeah, reading this I realize it was you. Cool. Won't torque the metaphor any more myself except to say I won't gainsay the point you make, since science has sort of taken a hammer to religion and theology in a lot of ways and put the truth seekers there in what seems a defensive rather than expansive mode. Which I guess is a pretty natural reaction on their part, all things considered. And that makes me a bit sad, as I've never viewed 'truth seeking' in either camp as being a mutually exclusive enterprise.
I don't know, we all ultimately have to live and travel through life by our own lights. But a little extra candle power from someone somewhere else often helps to better illuminate the trail. Even a few photons from an exchange like this one. Shine on.
For sure - and even when we end up in a different spot it’s both fun and illuminating to mark out the contours of the disagreement. I do view them as mutually exclusive for all the reason that better thinkers and sharper minds have noted, but I can understand why folks take the other side of that argument.
Ultimately I don’t see how the theological way of knowing can possibly illuminate in a disenchanted world. It requires a bit of magic that cannot exist under the bright lights of reason.
Now, we’re all mostly stumbling in the dark… but that’s why I love these two quotes from HL Mencken so much:
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.”
“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.“
Like the quotes...have heard the one about the cat in the dark (always brings a smile), but not the other, which rings pretty true.
There are plenty of better thinkers, smarter minds and more articulate voices than mine out there. And that's why I don't insist that my view is the only correct one in matters such as this, and never begrudge others their beliefs, however different from mine they may be. Some follow reason and rigid epistemological discipline exclusively. Others, like myself, believe in and depend on reason to guide their daily lives but still believe and have faith in things reason alone cannot explain. The cause of this varies by individual, I suppose. I can't really make a 'reasoned' argument about why I have faith in and believe the things of a religious nature that I do, since there's no scientific proof or rigid logic for them.
But what I can say is that I don't 'believe' because I was taught to in Sunday school or church (BTW...been absent from the pew for a long time now for a number of reasons.) Or anywhere else, for that matter. Rather, my belief and faith (or 'magic', if you will) is the result of the sum total of my life's physical, mental and emotional experiences. I sometimes question some of its parameters, but I never doubt its essence. And it is the fact that I'm willing to question some facets of my own beliefs from time to time that allows me to be open to hearing of and learning about the beliefs of others and the explanations for them.
One thing we can probably agree on is that with all that stumbling around in the dark, we're all going to stub our toes now and then, which can sometimes be a bit painful, a common human experience we share even when our beliefs about other things differ.