Warbler said:
of course the life of the mother has to be considered. Even if I believe that the fetus is human life with the same rights as you or I, the mother has just as much right to live.
Or more right, even.
walkingdork said:
But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights?
Birth!
and who decided that?
walkingdork said:
I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
and I don't think people should use abortion as a wily nily form of abortion either, but I'm not about to tell how to make that choice. I'm definitely against any law that makes that decision for women.
and you are against such a law because you don't believe the fetus is a human life with the same rights to life as you or I. You might say it would be wrong of me to force my believe that the fetus has the same right to live as you or I, on the mother. But was it wrong to force that same belief on the slave master regarding African Americans?
Warbler said:
walkingdork said:
So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?
it doesn't. I don't what to say about rape/incest. I've never been able to decide that. Kill an innocent unborn child(that I believe has the same rights as you or I), or force a raped women against her will to carry the child of the rapist in for 9 months and go through labor. and then who knows what regarding custody. a horrible situation. I really don't have an answer here.
Dork totally has you on this one, I'm afraid. If you say abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn baby, and you justify abortion in the instance of rape, then essentially, what you are saying by your own standards is that it is okay to murder an innocent unborn human baby if its conception was caused by rape.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You have three entities involved, the rapist, the victim, and the unborn child who was not responsible for any of this and is completely innocent. His hands are completely clean.
If you really think that an unborn child has rights, then why should those rights be revoked in the instance of a rape this child had no blame in?
You don't have an answer to that, as you already admitted. I do though: It is a matter of convenience. Exactly the same as it is for pro-choicers. Only the line is drawn differently, but clearly, neither of us think the life of that unborn baby is really equal to that of a true person, or that he should have the same rights as the rest of us. I think the pro-choice side, at least, is more honest about it. Our sides matter of convenience is drawn at, "I really don't want to be pregnant right now because [insert one of any number of reasons here]." While yours is drawn at "Oh my god, rape is such a horrific thing! Can you imagine having to carry a reminder of that horrible crime inside you for 9 months, then having to give birth to it followed by suffering the turmoil of either raising the child of your rapist, or giving it up for adoption, then regardless of the choice made, still suffering the permanent alterations made to your body by pregnancy as well as all the psychological trauma suffered throughout?"
It is convenient to allow the murder of that child. To force a woman through all that is beyond cruel, it is almost more horrible and unjust than the rape itself was. So, we make allowances for the sake of convenience. We can make this allowance because, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves and others, we know it isn't a real kid being mowed down. It isn't the same as picking a baby up out of a bassinet and poisoning it or snapping its neck. The vast majority of pro-life people realize this, and are compassionate enough that they are not willing to extend their desire to force morality and dictate what someone can and can't do with their own bodies to the degree of forcing a rape victim to carry her child to term. Or, to force a mother to risk her life for the sake of her unborn baby.
Pro-choice extents that compassion further to include the teenage mother whose future and potential is going to be extremely limited by having a baby, or to the child who is going to be born into a poverty level household already filled with plenty of kids who will never contribute to society and suffer lives filled with crime and violence; and to every situation in between.
What if you have a zombie baby or an alien-human hybrid squid creature?
Do these creatures not have rights too?
They would have aborted the lizard babies in V but for the mother's health.
A false dichotomy is not proof enough. I have already argued on the last page (pretty effectively I feel, and without any response forgot that he did respond, and I'm the one who needs to address him directly) against walkingdork's premise. But let's look at it a different way. Why must we choose between a child having all the rights of a born child, or absolutely none of them? Why not all the rights, or simply most of them, trumped only in a few instances? Arguments that state you must accept all or nothing of something are usually overly-simplistic. Only a Sith deals in absolutes ;)
CP3S, if your point is a philosophical one about the inconsistency of calling it murder but allowing exceptions, you're right. But if there's one thing I've learned, Warbler doesn't care about philosophical distinctions. No offense, Warbler, I think you'd agree the philosophical side of things doesn't hold much relevance to your thinking. You care what happens in practice.
From the philosophical standpoint, I think a lot of what you say is accurate and there are probably many people who hold that sort of incoherent view and are in essence drawing a different line of convenience. Setting aside the position's loss of principled morality, there is still a question whether there is anything wrong with drawing a different line of convenience.
You're also right most of us see a difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus. Pregnancy is unique. I don't think there are easy answers. That does lead some to throw their hands up and say it is best left to the woman.
What prevents many from giving up is the continued belief that the fetus is a human life (and factually, it is). I think you give a good review of the thinking of both sides, but the compassion of the pro-choice side runs in a single direction, where certain conveniences can only be justified by ignoring that the fetus has any moral value. Otherwise it's like Biden's statement: "Life begins at conception...and I just refuse to impose that on others."
ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).
The blue elephant in the room.
walkingdork said:
darth_ender said:
walkingdork said:
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person.
Yeah, whatever, fetus, fine. They are incomplete people.
But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights?
Birth!
I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
and I don't think people should use abortion as a wily nily form of abortion either, but I'm not about to tell how to make that choice. I'm definitely against any law that makes that decision for women.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I think you and I have probably talked about this to death so I won't comment further. My statement was address to warbler because I don't think I've heard his response that my thinking (although I believe several have brought it up already).
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Self defense is one thing but what is your feeling about people after the fact? What if you aren't home when someone comes into your house and kills a member of your family? when they convict him/her 6 months later with live in prison without parole would you demand he be put to death?
I probably would I don't have a big problem with capital punishment for 1st degree murder (when there is ZERO chance he is innocent). Although when I hear cases of the victim's family demanding that capital punishment not be used I think they should have the right to be heard.
Yes, I favor capital punishment, pretty much exactly as described here, including hearing the desires of the victim's family.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
Up yours pal. ;)
Back to you and stick like glue :P I'm glad we get along so much better :) In any case, I wanted to respond to this, but now that I'm rereading, there's not much to say. I'll merely be repeating myself on so many points.
darth_ender said:
A false dichotomy is not proof enough.
...
Why must we choose between a child having all the rights of a born child, or absolutely none of them? Why not all the rights, or simply most of them, trumped only in a few instances? Arguments that state you must accept all or nothing of something are usually overly-simplistic. Only a Sith deals in absolutes ;)
Making the excuse that it is a false dichotomy is an interesting attempt to try to weasel out without actually having to address the subject. Mine was more of a plea for consistency. If you are going to call it murder, why suddenly remove this label "murder" in instances when it is fitting to you?
Abortion is murder! Well, abortion would be murder... but since the poor girl was raped... it's not...
This inconsistent.
I'm not a big fan of black and white thinking, I appreciate all the millions of shades of grey this world has to offer; so I am certainly not attempting to force black and white thinking on this discussion as Ender has accused me of. I'm actually attempting to remove the black and white by showing that even those here saying abortion is murder don't really believe that to be true and in reality see it just every bit as grey as the rest of us. Come on! Don't call something "murder", then turn around and justify that very thing under certain conditions.
If it really held the value of a real human child to you (and it doesn't), then there is no way you could justify its termination under any circumstances; no more than you could justify the execution of a 2 year old for even the most horrific crimes committed by his parents.
Mrebo said:
Warbler doesn't care about philosophical distinctions. No offense, Warbler, I think you'd agree the philosophical side of things doesn't hold much relevance to your thinking. You care what happens in practice.
It is true, he really doesn't.
Setting aside the position's loss of principled morality, there is still a question whether there is anything wrong with drawing a different line of convenience.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, until you try to force that unprincipled morality on the rest of the population. I rest easy knowing there are people who care for and love their unborn children. But I also rest easy knowing that someone has a right not to have to allow their body to go through the changes and trauma of pregnancy for the sake of a future child they didn't intent to conceive, especially when they lack the competency, ability, or desire to rise said child.
If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.
What prevents many from giving up is the continued belief that the fetus is a human life (and factually, it is). I think you give a good review of the thinking of both sides, but the compassion of the pro-choice side runs in a single direction, where certain conveniences can only be justified by ignoring that the fetus has any moral value. Otherwise it's like Biden's statement: "Life begins at conception...and I just refuse to impose that on others."
I actually really dislike pro-choice people who don't seem willing to admit that it is a human life, or would rather not admit or acknowledge it, despite the reality that medicine and science tells us it is. That whole line of thinking rubs me the wrong way. I really do think a lot of ignorance surrounds this issue, perhaps on both sides, but more pertinent to the pro-choice side. What you hold inside you is a future person, and very much its own entity with 100% unique DNA, snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.
ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).
Just to ensure the record is straight, I never said, "murder or nothing" or anything remotely close to it.
D'oh! That wasn't suppose to happen.
The use of the word "convenience" regarding abortion, in cases of rape or health of the mother, is very disturbing to me.
CP3S said:
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, until you try to force that unprincipled morality on the rest of the population. I rest easy knowing there are people who care for and love their unborn children. But I also rest easy knowing that someone has a right not to have to allow their body to go through the changes and trauma of pregnancy for the sake of a future child they didn't intent to conceive, especially when they lack the competency, ability, or desire to rise said child.
If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.
I still think it's hard to reduce it to minding one's own business when there is that other life at stake.
I also think the assumption that so many abortions are for the best is flawed. That a baby would be undesired doesn't justify ending its life. I was born to a woman (my mother, coincidentally) who a rational observer might have declared unprepared to raise a child due to the situation at the time. It was certainly far from ideal for her. Her sister (my aunt, surprisingly), impressed upon her how undesirable it would be for her to have a baby. Fortunately, my aunt's pleas fell on deaf ears. The glib lesson some will draw is: well good for your mother, she had the choice and she made it for herself. The lesson I see (and she certainly sees) is that tough circumstances and questions about ability don't justify ending the baby-to-be's life. In a case of rape, however, many see a difference, not because the situation is merely undesirable or unintended, but because it was actually forced upon the woman.
I actually really dislike pro-choice people who don't seem willing to admit that it is a human life, or would rather not admit or acknowledge it, despite the reality that medicine and science tells us it is. That whole line of thinking rubs me the wrong way. I really do think a lot of ignorance surrounds this issue, perhaps on both sides, but more pertinent to the pro-choice side. What you hold inside you is a future person, and very much its own entity with 100% unique DNA, snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.
It is an uncomfortable fact. The way I view my position is that my belief is anchored in recognizing the life and worth of the baby-to-be. That's why I identify as pro-life. From there, I would confront the difficult question of what could justify cutting that life short. Again, you're right from a moral standpoint that cutting a life short based on how it was created isn't morally coherent. Also, Plan B poses a major challenge to those trying to be true to a moral principle. Somehow it seems less bad if it's really early or we don't know.
Ultimately, I don't know that anything truly justifies ending the fetus's life. But there is a point where it is hard to justify making sure the woman carries it to term. Rape is one of those situations. When her life is on the line is another. I think many pro-choice people could see that ending the fetus's life isn't "justified" even in that latter case, but is acceptable or necessary. I think it is more along the lines of those killed as "collateral damage." Deaths of the innocent can't really be justified.
When it comes to assertions that it's difficult and undesirable, I don't see how those interests, however valid, can trump the value of the life. And who am I to say? A member of society who believes human life deserves legal protection. Again, it comes back to that life.
The cop-out, but the reality, is that laws do not need to be entirely consistent with a moral principle, even when they're animated by one.
In the US, polls show an overwhelming majority would outlaw abortion after the first trimester (as is the case in France). That is also the direction I want to go in. Right now an extremist view prevails that abortion shouldn't be a big deal (unless you want it to be) and I don't see how it doesn't effect society's conception of abortion.
ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).
Just to ensure the record is straight, I never said, "murder or nothing" or anything remotely close to it.
I know.
TV's Frink said:
The use of the word "convenience" regarding abortion, in cases of rape or health of the mother, is very disturbing to me.
There is a good point in that, from the pro-life perspective, to try to undermine C3PS's argument. I think many would say abortion is never convenient, but those abortions even less so. There is a qualitative difference, even if difficult to lay out in a morally coherent way. To defend the CP3S's argument, the term was meant as a philosophical critique of pro-lifers conception of the convenience of permitting the moral choice, not the act itself.
The blue elephant in the room.
TV's Frink said:
The use of the word "convenience" regarding abortion, in cases of rape or health of the mother, is very disturbing to me.
It fits. Perhaps you are misreading my context? I have a hard time seeing how it could be disturbing. The convenience has to do with moral values and justification. It is convenient to justify it in this case, but not in that case. Still disturbing?
It just carries an anti-abortion connotation.
I'm sure you see what I did there.
No, I don't see what you did there, I am afraid...
darth_ender said:
walkingdork said:
Warbler said:
Monolithium said:
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means I am for Choice.
but it must be more than that, in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or you must believe that people have the right to murder.
So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?
I personally don't think so. However, I do feel that I can be more accommodating on these points, though again, I feel it should not be the default, but rather an option. My reason for this is that when when person's health poses a risk to another, sometimes you have to make a choice. Often, separating conjoined twins is an unfortunate and perhaps arbitrary choice of who will die so the other can live. Considering the potential mental health dangers in rape/incest and what they can ultimately lead to, I am willing to provide the option, especially when it does become so much less clear. But even in cases like this, I feel like abortions should be done earlier than later...much earlier than allowed at the present.
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person. But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights? I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
Quoting myself for C3PS. Note that I don't call it murder, in spite of my passion on the subject. I give various reasons for allowing the mother to live over the child. There are numerous cases where killing is not murder. But in my humble opinion, a human life has already begun at conception, and it should be protected in as many cases as possible. It's a matter of societal perception, and it truly saddens me that too many people discard a child as little more than an excised tumor rather than recognizing that they have indeed ended a distinct individual's life. If Western society simply changed its worldview, then more would be willing to carry children to term, even if they were not interested in keeping the child. It would be a choice reliant on when health is truly at stake, be it mental or physical. It would not simply be a matter of socioeconomics.
Warbler said:
walkingdork said:
But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.of course the life of the mother has to be considered. Even if I believe that the fetus is human life with the same rights as you or I, the mother has just as much right to live.
But a mother dying because of complications is more natural than abortion wouldn't you agree? So you would "murder" an unborn child to save a woman from a tragic but natural death?
And don't give me the "but a child cannot live without its mother" response that Darth_Ender likes to use. Nowadays a child absolutely CAN live without it's mother. If a child is born and the mother dies during labor the nurse doesn't just set the child on its mother's corpse and hope for the best. They find acceptable people to adopt and care for that child.
If you want a Myspleen invite, just PM me and ask.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Once-upon-a-time-on-MySpleen/topic/12652/
I'm not talking about a 39 1/2 week baby. I'm talking about the fact that most children's health is seriously jeopardized when the mother dies. Nothing can nurture an unborn child like the mother's uterus. The child will very likely die without her, unless we're getting close to the end, and even then the chances of the child's survival are greatly diminished due to the mother's lack of oxygen and nutrients.
If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?
The blue elephant in the room.
^Nice call!
Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?
Mrebo said:
If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?
The process of late term abortion is pretty morbid. I'm in favor of laws against it as a compromise with pro-lifers and an incentive for people to get their abortions before the fetus is fully formed.
Should women be able to choose to have a late term abortion? Probably, but I am seriously against it since at that point the brain is the same as it will be the day it is born.
darth_ender said:
Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?
My grandpa always said you can fix anything with a hammer...
If you want a Myspleen invite, just PM me and ask.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Once-upon-a-time-on-MySpleen/topic/12652/
walkingdork said:
Mrebo said:
If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?
The process of late term abortion is pretty morbid. I'm in favor of laws against it as a compromise with pro-lifers and an incentive for people to get their abortions before the fetus is fully formed.
I'm sure it's not compromise for the sake of compromise. The incentive part makes sense as policy, though I don't know how many women it would hurry along in their decision. I think it's pretty clear that you just recognize the terribleness of the act and that unless it is truly necessary to save the woman's life or something at that late stage, it's not necessary.
Should women be able to choose to have a late term abortion? Probably, but I am seriously against it since at that point the brain is the same as it will be the day it is born.
It's a good illustration how a moral philosophy - autonomy of the woman in this case - can give way to reality without voiding its validity. It's disturbing to kill a fetus with a near-complete brain, formed fingers and toes, a beating heart. It can seem more palatable to cut the development short at an earlier stage. That it is more gruesome for us to consider means we can 'control a woman's body'? I think we all know it's more complicated. I think it's unfortunate so many reject the pro-life side out of fear that all abortion will become illegal.
darth_ender said:
Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?
My grandpa always said you can fix anything with a hammer...
My grandfather also reportedly held that view.
The blue elephant in the room.
Mrebo said:
walkingdork said:
Mrebo said:
If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?
The process of late term abortion is pretty morbid. I'm in favor of laws against it as a compromise with pro-lifers and an incentive for people to get their abortions before the fetus is fully formed.
I'm sure it's not compromise for the sake of compromise. The incentive part makes sense as policy, though I don't know how many women it would hurry along in their decision. I think it's pretty clear that you just recognize the terribleness of the act and that unless it is truly necessary to save the woman's life or something at that late stage, it's not necessary.
I think even the most liberal pro-choice folks would be against late term abortion. I had the process explained to me at length and was just horrified. I also think that everyone can agree that a baby at that stage can probably have some conscious thoughts and can certainly feel pain.
Should women be able to choose to have a late term abortion? Probably, but I am seriously against it since at that point the brain is the same as it will be the day it is born.
It's a good illustration how a moral philosophy - autonomy of the woman in this case - can give way to reality without voiding its validity. It's disturbing to kill a fetus with a near-complete brain, formed fingers and toes, a beating heart. It can seem more palatable to cut the development short at an earlier stage. That it is more gruesome for us to consider means we can 'control a woman's body'? I think we all know it's more complicated. I think it's unfortunate so many reject the pro-life side out of fear that all abortion will become illegal.
I agree that it is more complicated than a woman's right to choose, but at the end of the day the woman should be able to make that decision.
darth_ender said:
Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?
My grandpa always said you can fix anything with a hammer...
My grandfather also reportedly held that view.
first and only time I ever heard my great grandfather swear was when he asked my dad if he needed a "BFG" to fix his car that was giving him trouble. He then laughed and said "a big fucking hammer will fix anything." My grandpa (his son) also says something similar when electronics give him trouble.
If you want a Myspleen invite, just PM me and ask.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Once-upon-a-time-on-MySpleen/topic/12652/