The other day someone asked me if I was Pro-Choice or Pro-Life and my response was simple: I’m pro-condom. I mean even though the question was fair enough when in context, it reminded me of when people ask your blood type or government party or something. After a couple of rounds of “no, come on, really” prodding, I defended my opinion by stating a simple fact: in Connecticut, I have no say in the matter. As a male, I have no legal recourse to force or prevent an abortion, as women have complete control this decision. In fact, the only thing I can do – and by law, I am required to – is pay a minimum of $75 each month for child support, regardless of marriage, common law marriage, living situations, or employment status. This of course completely side steps the whole issue of abortion but that’s part of the point, actually, and it’s still the best possible argument to this quandary which is something I wish more people paid attention too: to me there’s nothing worse than listening to someone incorrectly argue their correct point.
The abortion example above is a rather convenient way to prove a point – I could have just as easily used the Red Sox shmucky fans that keep pointing to the Yankees and crying “they have a high payroll!” as to why the Yankees are so successful. That’s a piss poor attempt to win an argument. High payroll does help with championships but it’s hardly a guarantee or a requirement. Some teams have won with low payrolls (i.e. Angels, Marlins) and some high payroll teams haven’t won (i.e. Yankees). Besides, the Red Sox have only been a notch or two below the Yankees over the past few years with regards to the amount spent for players, yet they are still sucking wind and are almost second hat to the Bronx boys. Red Sox fans, get a clue: You have the same lame argument every year and it doesn’t work nor does it convince anyone to support your cause. Get some better facts and then you can combat other people in this area.
See what I mean? The wrong tactics can undermine your argument instead of supporting it. The abortion issue is a very good example of this: it’s a complicated question on many levels and certainly one of the muddiest dilemma of our age in both an ethical and moral way. The problem is that most of the advocates for both sides of this divide argue their point incorrectly and unsuccessfully.
OK, lets take a further step back: what in the hell are people still doing, protesting this whole thing for anyway? It’s their right to, obviously, but have ya ever wondered why? I mean, I can protest the fact that the grass is greener in the spring than it is in the fall because that is my right, but would that make sense to? We will all have our own opinions, obviously, but it’s quite another thing to be driven out of your house, screaming your opinion at rallies. Let’s look at that the whole point of publicly supporting either side of this, shall we? Where’s the protesters against murder of any living human when someone gets kill in a drive-by shooting? Where’s the protesters that rally against mothers that are too fuckin’ stupid to raise their own children and can’t drive a mini-van through rush hour traffic? Where’s the supporters for the families that refuse to use birth control and are an ever growing part of government debt and larger deductions of my paychecks? Where are the protesters that should be helping to promote birth control or abstinence rather than “post-sexual-clean-up is wrong”? Why does this argument even exist? Both sides should learn to live their lives and let other people find their own way.
There are people that have dedicated their entire lives to arguing either side of this argument. To these people I say get a real fuckin’ job and stop wasting your days away trying to get other people to live their lives in your image. That’s really what you’re doing: you’re trying to mold other people’s lives by your own beliefs or didn’t you realize that? One group is convinced that the right for a woman to rid herself of a fetus must be protected by the state and the other group is convinced that a woman is killing a human life but who’s to say that either is right or wrong? It’s just a difference of opinion. And what are the arguments supporting either side? Fucked if I know, but it’s all pretty moot to me. One wants a communist police state and the other wants… the same thing – both declare themselves as “just” and “right” because of their personal moral beliefs but they are both victims of the same crime.
Lets attack the Pro-Life’rs, because they’re easier for me to find flaw with. You state that the fetus is an innocent living creature and is being murdered, right? How much time have dedicated to supporting organizations that protect innocent animals from brutality? Animals act out of instinct and that makes them innocent by definition. None, I’m sure and why not? Aren’t you against killing innocent living creatures? OK, maybe it’s just humans. What have you done to combat crime, which kills infinitely more humans than abortions do? Too hard to do, eh? Also, if you’re Catholic, how does that play into this? After all, humans are by definition guilty of original sin until they are baptized so you aren’t saving innocent beings either. Further more, when was the last time you helped someone in a charity that wasn’t a part of your church? Stopped by the local Temple to drop off some good will? Not likely. And then there’s the de-facto anti-argument for the Pro-Life’rs: the protesters that are so blind in their cause that they go out and shoot doctors that perform abortions. Here’s a message to you fuck-wits: you’re guilty of the same crime that you’re protesting and no, your sniper shots and anonymous bombings are not righteous crimes – they are shameful acts of a coward and far worse than the acts of the doctor.
And the Pro-Choice’rs have just as many issues as the Pro-Life’rs; the rabid Pro-Choice’r are so wrapped up in the rights of the one that they’d give a reformed addict a fresh needle and some smack for old times sake because they believe the right exists. These shmo’s are just as guilty of imposing their lifestyle on others – they just don’t have a religion to back it up so they think they are more logical and secular. They’re just as deluded at the other side but they’ll never see it that way.
The point? Neither side can argue their case with the proper arguments because there will never be a way to properly settle this debate. If either side wins absolutely, we end up with the government having a bit too much power over life than it should: it either allows or prevents women from having the right to live their lives as they see fit to an end that cannot be determined by mortals. And in a world where resources are stretching pretty thin, there are far better things to invest time in. Amazing that a person will foam at the mouth in angst and fury to fight for what he cannot prove is so.
And they say that duality doesn’t have it’s place in today’s world. I’ll let you all know if I ever run for office.
AAARRRGGHHH!
I got into an argument with my entire family a week ago on this exact subject, and wound up feeling exactly the same way.
It didn’t matter which team you were on – I was irritated about how arguments were being handled on both sides.
My mom was just blindly repeating, “Women should be allowed to choose,” which certainly isn’t much of an argument.
Then, my father went off on some long tangent about how you wouldn’t just take a five year-old and gas it.
I wasn’t siding with either parent, but I told my mom *not* to respond to his argument because it had *nothing* to do with how he felt about abortion. She argued anyway, and the whole silly debate went on for another half hour – all because my mother can’t tell the difference between an abortion and killing a five year old.
It just drove me nuts. I wish people were better at seeing “good” and “bad” arguments, but most just don’t. I don’t know why that is, but your post makes me happy to know that I’m not alone in the matter…
Same goes for the “Linux is a better operating system than Windows because I hate Bill Gates” argument. I don’t know if I can handle another one of those…
You won’t see a “Linux rules because Gates have too much money” on this site – I’d start smacking people with a Timex Sinclair if it came to that. Same with “Red Sox should win because the Yankees have a higher payroll and should be banned” here either. People just simply need to learn how to argue properly because they can actually hurt their own argument if they don’t.
Oh and some great content you got going on yer site, too btw – tis always a good read over at http://www.neopoleon.com/blog/ – reminds me that I should update my own Blog roll.
“People just simply need to learn how to argue properly because they can actually hurt their own argument if they don’t.”
Again, I agree 100%.
I’ve been finding myself lately in the funny situation of helping my (let’s get pretentious here) opposing interlocutor to better form his/her arguments in order to continue a given debate in a worthwhile manner, rather than simply engaging in a sort of heated and cyclical banter.
I’ve also learned that people don’t *want* help – Improving an argument can raise the bar in a debate, which can make coming up with good follow-up arguments more difficult than it would otherwise be.
It seems that most people just want to say “You’re stupid, so THERE.” I’m so tired of that…
Thanks for talking about this – It’s been very theraputic for me :)
Theraputic? That’s the whole reason for this site – people that see me in person can only handle so much ranting, so now I bleed it out to the ‘net… it makes me less combustive if I get out the angst in written form.
Well sorta. :)
Randy, you worry me. You can criticize other people’s argumentation until you are blue in the face, but what you have chosen to say is the most elementary, mundane cop out possible that isn’t even worth mentioning. How can you just leave the issue as “it doesn’t matter either way” when clearly it does, because people care and argue about it, case in point. What is more, laws are made on the issue, so whether you feel directly effected or not, decisions are legislated that effect everyone. What you are doing is arguing some sort of moral relativism that is basically saying that whatever someone believes is right. Just because one person may believe murder is morally acceptable, it doesn’t mean anyone would except that, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the killer would go without consequences. It would be a scary world if people took moral issues and just said,” well, whatever you believe is right.” Wouldn’t it make more sense if as a society we argue and debate and come closer to finding what really is “right”. I may remind you that upon the creation of this nation we felt morally justified in owning slaves. It was only after a civil war and a civil rights movement that we came to the societal decision that slavery was unacceptable, and i hardly think anyone would disagree with this outcome. So while you think this subject- philosophy in case you didn’t know-is unimportant, it is, and maybe enrolling yourself in a philosophy class somewhere would help you see that. But for me, i feel better knowing people are arguing, working out ethical issues and not accepting a static, unchanging, confused state of being, because if that was the case, we could live in a country where slavery was a normality in 2003.
I shouldn’t worry you – I’m just a lone coder in the grand scheme of the Internet.
What’s more is that you’ve missed the point. My overall point is that people argue until they are blue in the face, yet can never fully make their point. They blow and blow and blow but because they aren’t using the correct argument or fighting with proper logical weapons, they are ineffective and end up hurting their own case. They can be right yet can’t make their point.
Do you think MLK, Jr. argued that everyone should enjoy equal rights “just because it’s what we should do”? No, he used arguments that were based on faith, science, sociology, philosophy and civil liberties. He backed his arguments with facts and notions and motion. Lincoln didn’t just walk around saying “Slavery is bad because it isn’t cool”.
Hitler and Clinton are the best known modern leaders that got elected and advanced in their positions based on charisma and cliche’s alone. And at least Clinton had two other branches of government to keep him balanced out, but even so that’s got nothing to DO with this entire Rant.
The fact is that if you want to battle with someone on something, get the right proof/support/arguments to support your battle… if ya don’t do that, shaddap.
I absolutely loved that piece, all up to the bashiing of the pro choice people. i support abortion, like i support many other things. My take onabortion is that everyone out there is all about dont murder, bring the child, have it, but my big question is when you have it, can they also force you to love it? Love doesn’t neccesarily come with giving birth you know. love comes from wanting to love, from knowing that what you sacrificed for the love is worth it. And to be perfectly honest, i am 20 years old, a junior majoring in psychology and i have vowed that by the time i am 25 years old I will have my PhD, if i were to get pregnant I will be aborting you know why? maybe u don’t care to know why, but i will tell you anyway. When I am 35 and this child is 15, I would probably be the angriest, hateful and miserable person alive, all because i had to put all my dreams on the back burner for another. AND yes i am selfish because MY life is MINE and i live for ME, you know what’s worst than abortion? It’s bringing a child into this world and not giving that child love. People who are forced to bring a child against their will, usually abuse and hate that child so bad that it screws that child up so bad, might as well it be dead. Some people ask then why not use a condom, or birthcontrol….as Randy says it’s all about rights, anyone has the right not to use condoms or birthcontrol, the right to get pregnant and they damn well should have the right to terminate their pregnancy if they choose too. that’s just my stance!
i’m doing a dialectic for my social 30 high school class and my topic is abortion. i have read dozens of articles on abortion but this one stands out to me. at first i found this form of argument amusing, but reading terissa’s reply literally made me sick. i pity you, to be so selfish, you should be ashamed of yourself. i hope you are never blessed with a child, especally one that you want. a person as selfish as yourself does not deserve that. ever.
Yay! Someone that isn’t pissed at me for a change! *whew*
I am a high school student doing a paper on the arguement of abortion. Terissa I completely agree with everything you said. Megan, I don’t think she is selfish at all. I know that If I were to get pregnant right now I would choose abortin. Having a baby would change the rest of my life, and I would definately not be able to go to University, as I am planning to do soon after high school. Maybe it is selfish to have dreams, but I wouldn’t want to make myself miserable as well as my child.
Vicki when you say that you have dreams and want to futher your education, and if you were to get pregant you would have an abortion this is how i feel. Yes I agree that a baby changes your life but that does not mean that you can not follow your dreams, I graduated from highschool two years ago, and im following my dreams and i have a baby and she is the love of my life. So when you ask if yourselfish because you want to follow your dreams i have to say that yes you are! Why would you want to abort a baby that is apart of you.You have many other options that you could consider then abortion.My baby didnt stop me from following my dreams but infact she helps workharder to follow my dreams and do the best that can for her. i think very poorly of people who use following their dreams an an excuss to use abortion. You can still follow your dreams with a child!
So is a fetus alive or not? If yes, why kill it? because it makes life harder? Okay, why not kill my 12 year old son because he’s going to cost too much in the future (college)? If not, then getting rid of the fetus is like removing a tumor. It comes down to whether or not fetus is considered alive. Unfortunately, medical science says it is. As far as those arguements that say “pro-lifers are against abortion but don’t help all the other things in the world (like anti-death penalty, poverty, etc.)” let’s get something straight, there’s a difference between anti-abortion and all the rest. Are you really going to put murderers on the same level as a child? A murderer goes to prison/put to death for a crime. What did the child do to deserve death? Of course, this is if you believe the fetus is alive. Final note, if you have an itch in your camel toe, scratch it yourself. Then you won’t have to worry about abortion.
The problem isn’t that of abortion. The problem is that if you’re going to argue something, you should have the proper argument to argue it.
Hi, i’m doing reseach for a science project in school and i find this article intensely interesting. I agree with Terissa’s argument, but i feel that she misphrased her views. Aborting a baby for the sake of fufilling one’s dreams is a practical and perfectly sound idea. Besides, if you dont have the ability to raise a child well, i do not believe that you should attempt to do so. I find the bibilical arguments exceedingly one-sided and asinine, being a aetheist. I do not believe that one should base one’s life on an old book which no one can prove is factual. I think that abortion boils down to the question of human rights. Does a pregnant mother have the right to choose to not be burdened by a unborn child which she will have to suffer for nine months for, or does a not yet sentient foetus have the right to live?
idc i dont believe in abortions and i dont think anybody should kill there child they shouldnt of laid down and had sex if they wasnt expecting to have a baby come on now use protection!!! if u dont want to have KIDS!!
Uh… OK?
Wow, I am amazed I was able to read and understand Alexis’s attempt at the english language!
Yay me!