Adam Savage at the Reason Rally

[linttrap]

When birth control is 100% effective and available to everyone, abortion will only be needed for medical reasons. The same people who rant on about how awful abortion is are the same people who restrict birth control. How much sense does that make?

Which tells me it is not about protecting a fetus but forcing a personal set of beliefs that are not rational or sensible on a mother who must carry a child for 9 months at the risk of her own health and mental well-being, against her will. Until a baby can live (vegetative functions of respiration and heart beat, with some assistance if necessary) outside the mother's womb, I can't consider it a separate person. That is my opinion.

And currently, it is the law of the land. If abortions become illegal they will not stop, simply go back underground the way it was when I was a teenager.

Birth control, real choice about whether to be pregnant or not, is the answer to the abortion issue.

So why is it pro-life people are against birth control? It isn't science, so it must be faith or religious creed.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Robbie, as an Atheist I am Pro life only for my self, because I want and am capable of molding the next generation. Yet, I am pro choice for all others and will not advocate anything but having a choice.

Roe Vrs Wade is the law of the land for the west, so if for what ever reason one chooses to terminate a pregnancy based on the tenets of this law ( which I think does a good job of considering many things.)

I just do not think they are ( pro choice) wrong or less then either. I think that in pro choice it honors by default the choice to stand for pro life. And I actually respect that if that is what works better for the person.

I can even see that Religion takes a stand on valuing life and I actually agree with this for myself( for these reasons: I have the means and the desire to be a parent )but if I did not, I would not want my choice to be stripped from me, if I felt I was not suitable to the commitment for what ever reasons . Stripping one of choice by devaluing them when they are within their rights legally concerns me when religion approaches this matter (for those that do, not everyone who is religious does) and I am not saying you do, I am addressing this type of approach only..

Your thoughts?

My honest opinion? You state that you have the means and the desire to be a parent and therefore choose to do so. To be frank, I believe that if you are unable or unwilling to become a parent (whether it be finances or careers or whatever) then don't have sex! Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control, even if it was just an accidental pregnancy. The obvious exception to this is in cases where the life of the mother or the baby are at risk if the pregnancy is continued.

Of course I am speaking of an ideal situation in an ideal world. Real life isn't like that. What I presented above is my moral stance on the matter. In matters of ideology, I am pro-life. But in matters of practicality, sometimes this is just not possible. For many and varied reasons. people get pregnant, and they decide that abortion is the only viable alternative. Whatever my personal opinions are, people disagree with me. History has shown us that if we make something like this illegal it won't actually stop it from happening. Think Prohibition Era America when alcohol was made illegal. People didn't stop drinking, it was just pushed underground. I see the same thing happening if abortion is made illegal. Problem is, abortion is a serious medical procedure, and pushing it underground will cause far more problems with backyard doctors who use poorly sterilised equipment and substandard care and thus put the life of the woman at risk.

Therefore, while I am morally pro-life, and won't ever agree with someone's choice to abort a baby, in practical terms I am pro-choice. People will find a way to abort regardless of what is "legal" or not.

Her body her choice, right? Or is it the baby's body her choice?

Sorry, couldn't help that last bit - ignore it, it represents my moral stance but as said, in practical terms I understand people differ

~ PA

[Leonardo]

The fact is that you don't have to be religious (particularly Christian) in order to be pro-life. I can point to non-Christian members here on UM (not just non-Christian, but non-religious) who morally oppose pro-choice. We all tend to gravitate towards beliefs that support our ideals, do you really think that those who are pro-life would suddenly change their minds if they were cut off from their religious ideology?

My honest opinion? You state that you have the means and the desire to be a parent and therefore choose to do so. To be frank, I believe that if you are unable or unwilling to become a parent (whether it be finances or careers or whatever) then don't have sex! Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control, even if it was just an accidental pregnancy. The obvious exception to this is in cases where the life of the mother or the baby are at risk if the pregnancy is continued.

Morally I agree with you, PA. But I do not hold the right to impose my moral choices upon others - who may have a different morality than I.

This is why I can accept that someone has the right to shout "F*@k you, Christians (or Leo). Don't tell me I can't have an abortion." without that person being tarnished as being "dark and/or hateful". I can be Pro-Life (and, in fact, I am on a personal level) while still accepting that Pro-Choice is the only rational and reasonable position to hold to with regards others.

But none of this is really relevant to the main point I was making regarding the specific target of Christians in the invective you gave as an example. Because the Christians, as a group, are the most high-profile and influential of those backing the Pro-Life movement, the naming of that group in the invective is not unreasonable, and doing so does not automatically suggest the speaker holds a "dark and hateful" attitude towards Christians or Christianity (or religion, for that matter.)

I agreed with Lilly the use of obscenity would be rude, but again that does not indicate a "dark and hateful" design.

[+Sherapy]

My honest opinion? You state that you have the means and the desire to be a parent and therefore choose to do so. To be frank, I believe that if you are unable or unwilling to become a parent (whether it be finances or careers or whatever) then don't have sex! Abortion is NOT an acceptable form of birth control, even if it was just an accidental pregnancy. The obvious exception to this is in cases where the life of the mother or the baby are at risk if the pregnancy is continued.

Of course I am speaking of an ideal situation in an ideal world. Real life isn't like that. What I presented above is my moral stance on the matter. In matters of ideology, I am pro-life. But in matters of practicality, sometimes this is just not possible. For many and varied reasons. people get pregnant, and they decide that abortion is the only viable alternative. Whatever my personal opinions are, people disagree with me. History has shown us that if we make something like this illegal it won't actually stop it from happening. Think Prohibition Era America when alcohol was made illegal. People didn't stop drinking, it was just pushed underground. I see the same thing happening if abortion is made illegal. Problem is, abortion is a serious medical procedure, and pushing it underground will cause far more problems with backyard doctors who use poorly sterilised equipment and substandard care and thus put the life of the woman at risk.

Therefore, while I am morally pro-life, and won't ever agree with someone's choice to abort a baby, in practical terms I am pro-choice. People will find a way to abort regardless of what is "legal" or not.

Her body her choice, right? Or is it the baby's body her choice?

Sorry, couldn't help that last bit - ignore it, it represents my moral stance but as said, in practical terms I understand people differ

~ PA

I agree there are many ways to try and prevent abortion as the alternative to begin with. Education is a great start. Yet, I do not think that in every case abortion is the birth control method, that is why I choose to honor the choice of others( so long as it is within the tenets of the law.) So as a culture as you so eloquently said, "we have to be practical and reasonable.."

Edited March 31, 2012 by Sherapy

[+Link of Hyrule]

Morally I agree with you, PA. But I do not hold the right to impose my moral choices upon others - who may have a different morality than I.

This is why I can accept that someone has the right to shout "F*@k you, Christians (or Leo). Don't tell me I can't have an abortion." without that person being tarnished as being "dark and/or hateful".

Speaking for myself, if anyone says something like this then regardless of their view I automatically think of them as "hateful". They are out to bring conflict and strife. And yes, this applies to religious folk just as much as it does to non-religious, and unfortunately for my side of the argument I know you can find plenty of examples where religious people have been quite hateful in their speech.

But none of this is really relevant to the main point I was making regarding the specific target of Christians in the invective you gave as an example. Because the Christians, as a group, are the most high-profile and influential of those backing the Pro-Life movement, the naming of that group in the invective is not unreasonable

I disagree. Certain groups of Christians certainly are the most high-profile proponents of the pro-life movement, but that is irrelevant as far as I can see. The fact is that there are many non-religious folk who are pro-life as well. If Christianity suddenly stopped existing, the argument against pro-choice/pro-life woulnd't suddenly stop. And even if Christianity did suddenly stop existing, those who adhere to Christianity as we know it aren't going to suddenly say "I now believe exactly the opposite to what I did five minutes ago".

[Leonardo]

Speaking for myself, if anyone says something like this then regardless of their view I automatically think of them as "hateful".

Then might I suggest you would find another who is just as "hateful" in your own shaving mirror? Perhaps you wouldn't swear as they swear, but you seem just as ready to seek division.

I accept we will not agree on much of what we have been discussing, and will leave you to your opinions.

[ChloeB]

The right to life is an inherent right to remain alive. It's not a decision. Your argument is basically that if someone doesn't tell you not to kill them, it's acceptable to kill them. Do newborns say they want to live? Do unconscious people? No, but we don't think it's all right to murder them.

Oh dear. Well, there's nothing we can legally do about that. It's their right to have as many kids as they please. At most it's the responsibility of the family or society to convince them not to have children if they can't handle them.

Aaah, well, I try to stay out of these arguments. Give me a few hours at my Walmart, you'll have me talking about setting up a mobile human spay and neuter clinic out in the parking lot. Let's all be happy I'm not in a position of power. And yes, idiots and pathetic parents like that woman in that story have the rights to have as many as they want, regardless if they can afford them and take care of them. We force other people to pay for them, and yet people sit back and pat themselves on the back for their big stance on saving "all them babies murdered" and turn a blind eye to stuff like this, a living breathing child and feel good about taking the rights away for a woman to decide what to do with her body and grant morons who aren't fit to be parents financial backing and all the rights in the world to have as many as they want. Something about that seems screwed up, it's like people are more concerned for kids not born.

Edited March 31, 2012 by ChloeB

[S2F]

Speaking for myself, if anyone says something like this then regardless of their view I automatically think of them as "hateful". They are out to bring conflict and strife.

Or it could be a defensive response to something that is already conflicted. I can see it as an angry response, which would be justifiable if someone were telling me that I would go to hell because I may not agree with their views. There are those that can be angry or upset about either side of the pro-life/pro-choice debate and not entertain 'hate' as a consequence. I'll freely admit though that those people would likely be the minority.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Then might I suggest you would find another who is just as "hateful" in your own shaving mirror? Perhaps you wouldn't swear as they swear, but you seem just as ready to seek division.

You're right, I wouldn't use the **** word, but I can't recall the last time I told someone to do or not do something about their pro-life/pro-choice beliefs based on my values. I've shared my opinion on what I believe in this particular matter, but I won't impose that view on anyone. So with respect, I must strongly disagree with your view - you will NOT see something "just as hateful" coming from my shaving mirror.

I accept we will not agree on much of what we have been discussing, and will leave you to your opinions.

On this I'm sure we are in 100% agreement

[+Link of Hyrule]

Or it could be a defensive response to something that is already conflicted. I can see it as an angry response, which would be justifiable if someone were telling me that I would go to hell because I may not agree with their views. There are those that can be angry or upset about either side of the pro-life/pro-choice debate and not entertain 'hate' as a consequence. I'll freely admit though that those people would likely be the minority.

Fair call, it could be an "angry" response. I guess I don't seem to have the same experiences as Americans, so I can't really say for certain whether we are looking at this from anywhere near the same point of view.

~ PA

[Parsip]

Aaah, well, I try to stay out of these arguments. Give me a few hours at my Walmart, you'll have me talking about setting up a mobile human spay and neuter clinic out in the parking lot. Let's all be happy I'm not in a position of power. And yes, idiots and pathetic parents like that woman in that story have the rights to have as many as they want, regardless if they can afford them and take care of them. We force other people to pay for them, and yet people sit back and pat themselves on the back for their big stance on saving "all them babies murdered" and turn a blind eye to stuff like this, a living breathing child and feel good about taking the rights away for a woman to decide what to do with her body and grant morons who aren't fit to be parents financial backing and all the rights in the world to have as many as they want. Something about that seems screwed up, it's like people are more concerned for kids not born.

I think the whole point of the pro-life movement is to make everyone realize that the unborn are no different than those who have already been born. To care more about one group is to renounce the fundamental principle of the pro-life movement. Christians are known for their charity throughout the world. You'd be hard-pressed finding a pro-lifer who cares more about the unborn than born children. There's always a minority in every movement who are only in it to feel better about themselves and don't truly care about the movement and its goals and principles.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Okay, slightly off topic post here. Well, it's about the Reason Rally, so it isn't too off topic I guess.

I watched the video of Dawkins speaking. He's a good speaker. Several times, he spoke about the "illusion of design". Now, that implies that it appears that the natural world is designed, doesn't it? If something looks like it is designed, the simplest explanation is that it WAS designed, correct? And according to Occam's Razor...where I'm going with this is probably obvious.

Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I think that it's a load of crap. I just think that talking about the "illusion of design", while useful as a taunt to religious people, doesn't make a lot of sense.

[S2F]

Okay, slightly off topic post here. Well, it's about the Reason Rally, so it isn't too off topic I guess.

I watched the video of Dawkins speaking. He's a good speaker. Several times, he spoke about the "illusion of design". Now, that implies that it appears that the natural world is designed, doesn't it? If something looks like it is designed, the simplest explanation is that it WAS designed, correct? And according to Occam's Razor...where I'm going with this is probably obvious.

Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I think that it's a load of crap. I just think that talking about the "illusion of design", while useful as a taunt to religious people, doesn't make a lot of sense.

An illusion could also be defined as a superficial image that belies what lay beneath. That may be closer to what Dawkins was referring to, in that creationists take the illusion of creation at face value instead of delving further to see that all is not what it seems. They are content with their fabricated illusion. I mean why mess with a good thing, right?

[S2F]

*double post

Edited April 2, 2012 by Slave2Fate

[Odin11]

Okay, slightly off topic post here. Well, it's about the Reason Rally, so it isn't too off topic I guess.

I watched the video of Dawkins speaking. He's a good speaker. Several times, he spoke about the "illusion of design". Now, that implies that it appears that the natural world is designed, doesn't it? If something looks like it is designed, the simplest explanation is that it WAS designed, correct? And according to Occam's Razor...where I'm going with this is probably obvious.

Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I think that it's a load of crap. I just think that talking about the "illusion of design", while useful as a taunt to religious people, doesn't make a lot of sense.

When people talk about the “illusion of design” they mean that at first glance or to the uneducated some things look designed, but once you start to look deeper the “illusion” falls away and one can clearly see that they have evolved.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Okay, slightly off topic post here. Well, it's about the Reason Rally, so it isn't too off topic I guess.

I watched the video of Dawkins speaking. He's a good speaker. Several times, he spoke about the "illusion of design". Now, that implies that it appears that the natural world is designed, doesn't it? If something looks like it is designed, the simplest explanation is that it WAS designed, correct? And according to Occam's Razor...where I'm going with this is probably obvious.

Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I think that it's a load of crap. I just think that talking about the "illusion of design", while useful as a taunt to religious people, doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think that this video pretty clearly illustrates how the 'illusion of design' quickly falls away when you look closer.

I believe Slave2Fate further illustrated what Dawkins means by 'illusion of design'. At first glance it might be easy to assume that the universe and life was designed, but the further you look the more you realize that if there were a creator, it/he/she is an idiot. Life is, in fact, very fragile and poorly designed.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Doc Socks Junior]

I understand what he meant by "illusion of design". I also understand that design is not the correct answer. I just think the phrasing is bad.

EDIT: If you watch the video, you'll recognize that he isn't saying that life looks like it is designed until you go closer and realize that it's a bad design. He says that life is so awesome that it looks like it was designed. Yeah. Little weak from Dawkins there.

Edited April 2, 2012 by socrates.junior

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Okay, slightly off topic post here. Well, it's about the Reason Rally, so it isn't too off topic I guess.

I watched the video of Dawkins speaking. He's a good speaker. Several times, he spoke about the "illusion of design". Now, that implies that it appears that the natural world is designed, doesn't it? If something looks like it is designed, the simplest explanation is that it WAS designed, correct? And according to Occam's Razor...where I'm going with this is probably obvious.

Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of creationism. I think that it's a load of crap. I just think that talking about the "illusion of design", while useful as a taunt to religious people, doesn't make a lot of sense.

Actually Occam's Razor requires you to take the least number of unfounded leaps of thought/logic. There being an illusion of a Creator's hand requires only an acceptance of that illusion which is supported by your eyes. Adding God/Allah/Bob into the equation requires acceptance of something that is fundamentally unprovable.

[Beckys_Mom]

Her body her choice, right? Or is it the baby's body her choice?

Sorry, couldn't help that last bit - ignore it, it represents my moral stance but as said, in practical terms I understand people differ

~ PA

Awwww look at that wee dote...so cute... In my 20 week scan, my little boy was seen on the monitor sucking his thumb ..After 20 weeks seeing him move around and suck his little thumb, I couldn't think of killing him...I couldn't ever entertain that idea.. not if he was healthy ..The thought would disturb me... It is not my body I am destroying.,.. it's the babys body and life I would be destroying..I am not that cruel

But shocking enough... Here is a story from the UK that I found disturbing... Based on women in the UK aborting after 20 weeks once they found they were having baby girls and didnt like the genders... Doctors were secretly filmed and no doubt in hot water over this --> http://www.telegraph...ions-asked.html

The only time I feel the mother should abort is over serious health issues.. Not because Oh its an inconvenience to me.. OR sigh I wanted a boy not a girl.. get rid of her.. That is just madness ...I couldn't believe this was going on in the UK...I understand some in the east doing it, they have so many reasons but the UK ?

Another thing.. ( Not aimed at you PA ) .. Why do people automatically think that if a person is against abortion, it must be religious? What a load of cods wallop tripe ..... I am not religious and I am not all for abortions for most part...

I am starting to think that one of the main reasons why some non religious all chant - We are pro choice is because they think anti abortion is religious, and they will say anything to spite the religious.. Even if they claim to be loving, doting caring, we love all children kind of parents and like to brag about their kids... Saying they are ok with others killing babies is just done out of their own spite towards religious... Not saying all do this.. I am saying I feel SOME do......Because I know there are many non religious people who are pro choice and each have their own reasons for their stand point and views..they are not concerned over religious anti abortions, they have their own reasons...... I am fine with that..It is their rights, their opinions.. so be it... This is why I only said SOME I feel do it because they want to spite or p*** off the religious, and they must think anti abortion is only done by the religious

I am sure I am not the only non religious person who is not all for this pro choice thing... I only will agree with it over serious health problems... Other than that.. I am not for abortions.. and I care not for any yappy posts that want to complain about my view point..In case anyone wishes to.. save it.. Its called holding my opinion and sticking by it

Edited April 3, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[+Link of Hyrule]

Awwww look at that wee dote...so cute... In my 20 week scan, my little boy was seen on the monitor sucking his thumb ..After 20 weeks seeing him move around and suck his little thumb, I couldn't think of killing him...I couldn't ever entertain that idea.. not if he was healthy ..The thought would disturb me... It is not my body I am destroying.,.. it's the babys body and life I would be destroying..I am not that cruel

I totally agree with this, though I'm pretty sure no one finds this surprising.

But shocking enough... Here is a story from the UK that I found disturbing... Based on women in the UK aborting after 20 weeks once they found they were having baby girls and didnt like the genders... Doctors were secretly filmed and no doubt in hot water over this --> http://www.telegraph...ions-asked.html

I seriously hope-to-God that this is an exaggeration or some kind of misinformation. I also find it disturbing. I'm hoping it isn't true, in Australia the "Daily Telegraph" is considered a very unreliable paper (it is often said that it is better to read a fiction novel than the Telegraph, at least fiction novels try and present universal themes of love/right/wrong/insert whatever moral fits...). I hope England is the same. But in saying that I would not be surprised if it were true.

Another thing.. ( Not aimed at you PA ) .. Why do people automatically think that if a person is against abortion, it must be religious? What a load of cods wallop tripe ..... I am not religious and I am not all for abortions for most part...

Once again I agree. I know for a fact that you aren't the only non-religious pro-life person out there. It's just one of those things. Though to be fair I think if we took a poll (and I vaguely remember an article that attests to this) that most pro-lifer's are Christian, but that's not actually surprising since most people in this world are Christian. Whatever the case, I've argued the same point myself several times (possibly more than several, over the years). I know you weren't aiming this at me, and I know you weren't implying I never made this argument, I'm simply agreeing with you in totality on this point

~ Regards, PA

[Beckys_Mom]

I seriously hope-to-God that this is an exaggeration or some kind of misinformation. I also find it disturbing. I'm hoping it isn't true, in Australia the "Daily Telegraph" is considered a very unreliable paper (it is often said that it is better to read a fiction novel than the Telegraph, at least fiction novels try and present universal themes of love/right/wrong/insert whatever moral fits...). I hope England is the same. But in saying that I would not be surprised if it were true.

I would love to find that this was not true too...Because I find it most disturbing... It does mention many ethnics are doing it in the UK.. and I know that in places like India, and some muslim parts they do in fact slaughter baby girls at birth...It is done for a few reasons, I recall reading about it.. But in the UK< for it to go on over the gender ..is too much to take in... It is illegal to do that in the UK and in Ireland.....So I really hope it is not true...

Once again I agree. I know for a fact that you aren't the only non-religious pro-life person out there. It's just one of those things. Though to be fair I think if we took a poll (and I vaguely remember an article that attests to this) that most pro-lifer's are Christian, but that's not actually surprising since most people in this world are Christian. Whatever the case, I've argued the same point myself several times (possibly more than several, over the years). I know you weren't aiming this at me, and I know you weren't implying I never made this argument, I'm simply agreeing with you in totality on this point

I believe you PA... Reason being is, I believe that for many of us, whether we be Christian or non Christian...our views can be based on our personal ideas and how we feel... Like for example - My love for babies, and the fact I was put through the heartache of loosing my baby.... Then you have people like yourself who just love babies and long to be a parent one day.. There are reasons for each of us... Some Christians may not care either way, and will say yes to pro choice, just like some of the Non Christians.. I too was one of those pro choice people before I ever had any kids of my own and before I suffered losses... My mind soon changed as a result... It can happen to the best of us.. It can take a trumatic experince to chances a perosns mind and get them to view it differently, when they least expect it ..

Each person no matter what faith or lack of faith they have, they will treat abortion issues differently, and like I said can be based on ones personal experiences or beliefs on how it makes them feel...

I also feel that because of a few Christians were reported to protest abortion and stories of bombing the clinics made it look bad and people think it must be a Christian thing to go against abortion... Well if they do think this, they are wrong...

Edited April 3, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[White Crane Feather]

Fair call, it could be an "angry" response. I guess I don't seem to have the same experiences as Americans, so I can't really say for certain whether we are looking at this from anywhere near the same point of view.

~ PA

Your a great man PA... I wish I knew you in person.