Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Genryu on March 01, 2005, 09:55:32 am
-
Clicky. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1427583,00.html)
Right now, I'm trying very much not to bash the US government upside down. Since Kazan's back, and with Rictor lurking, I think I'll let them do it, they're so much more experienced at this than me
:D
Still, sad to see than even China is doing better on human rights than the USA (or at least its government).
-
:wtf:
I'm at a loss for words (I could string together a lot of expletives, but that wouldn't accomplish much)...
This is, uh, maybe a tad hypocritical? That man gets more and more idiotic every day...
-
Well well, the neanderthals are becoming desperate. The US must know that the UN is going to give them about the same look that the court gave FOX when they sued Al Franken.
-
wtf DEATH TO AMERICA
-
I am literally struck dumb.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Still, sad to see than even China is doing better on human rights than the USA (or at least its government).
*refrains laughter*
Ah, hell... :lol: :lol:
Seriously... I'll sit this one out.
-
...have I mentioned before that I'm ashamed of my Government?
-
I'll refrain from commenting on this thread, I don't like being flamed.
-
I can't wait to see what Kazan is gonna say to this...;)
-
Frankly, I'd appreciate it better if people expressed their opinions, even if it's to flame me, the artcile, China, or America, since I think this is important enough for everybody to have their say.
FFS, Bush&Co don't stop telling us how much they do fro Freedom, and then deliver something like this. If someone has an intelligent opinion about this, even in a flame form, I'd like to see it.
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
I can't wait to see what Kazan is gonna say to this...;)
Something involving the word 'christofacist' and capital letters with angry red font, perhaps.
-
how about something involving the words
the religious right are a bunch of hypocritical extremists who's "Solution" to every problem involved A) forcing other people to do things and B) total bull**** beliefs
they need their religion out of our government from now on and we should CONSIDER letting them not have to kiss our asses for the next millenia
no.. they should still kiss our asses for the next millenia
----------------------------
ps: aldo
Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The word fascism (uncapitalized) has come to mean any political stance or system of government resembling Mussolini's, as further discussed below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism
the finer points
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
* engages in corporatism,[1] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=219369)
* implements or is a totalitarian regime.
now if you don't recognize a rising resemblance to those primary charactistics then you're not paying attention
and it's being done under tha auspices of fundamentalist christianity
-
oh here is a good article - read the paragraph just before the text changes font and then read all of the second font
http://thewitness.org/agw/webster012605.html
[edit]
oh.. btw i just cited a CHRISTIAN source who is united with me and others in the fight agaisnt the **************s
-
As me old mum always said to me, "empty vessels make most noise".
-
Still, sad to see than even China is doing better on human rights than the USA (or at least its government).
By granting a mother the right to choose, you are depriving the foetus of the right to live.
By granting a foetus the right to live, you are depriving the mother of the right to choose.
Let the debate begin.
-
That'll show those liberals who want a better life for everyone! :ha: :rolleyes: :shaking:
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
By granting a mother the right to choose, you are depriving the foetus of the right to live.
By granting a foetus the right to live, you are depriving the mother of the right to choose.
Let the debate begin.
Problem is we've done this so many times....... technically, though, in the former case you are only depriving the foetus of the right to live (skirting over the issue of whether a foetus is considered alive) if the mother chooses to make that choice.
Choice by itself isn't dangerous; the consequences of that choice made can be.
(my thoughts below v v)
However, IMO, the negativity of those consequences in the case of abortion is something which is largely determined by the persons individual beliefs and not by a neutral, unbiased source such as simple scientific evidence. Surely by allowing the choice, what we are doing is simply allowing people to express their own beliefs? I mean, if someone truly believes abortion is wrong, then they won't have one; if they don't, then they may have one.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
-
Pre-Civil War America was half-slave and half-free using exactly the same logic. People thought that was a workable, if not ideal, solution at the time. Now slavery is universally recognized as morally reprehensible.
Abortion opponents see the abortion debate in the same way.
-
They didn't listen to us on Iraq, let's not listen to them on this.
Seems only fair.
-
Thing is for me, it's always been like the movies, if you don't want to watch a movie, or don't agree with it's contents, walk past the door, that's what your feet are for.
I feel pretty much the same way about abortion, I wouldn't tell people what movies they should be watching, but I'm intelligent enough to make up my mind for myself :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Now slavery is universally recognized as morally reprehensible.
Except for the bits in the bible telling you how to do it properly?
Not to have a go at you but I find it interesting to hear someone describing something his own deity says is okay in such strong terms.
-
*pokes head into thread and looks around...sees it, and walks back out*
Not even gonna touch it.
-
See this face? This is my "I couldn't care less" face.
Seriously, there are far bigger fish to fry than whether abortion is considered a "human right" or not. It doesn't mean that Country X will suddenly ban abortion, just cause the UN doesn't consider it a basic right, even if this were to pass, which is doubtful.
I've never really understood the importance that most American liberals attach to the twin issues of abortion and religion. For me, and this is probably just my own bias/environment, its almost a total non issue.
-
Im against abortion but for killing babies (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=regressive)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Pre-Civil War America was half-slave and half-free using exactly the same logic. People thought that was a workable, if not ideal, solution at the time. Now slavery is universally recognized as morally reprehensible.
Abortion opponents see the abortion debate in the same way.
Unfortunately, slavery isn't a suitable parallel because there's easy to define why it is wrong.
In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.
In the case of abortion, the issue is basically over the right to life. But the definition of life scientifically differs with the various beliefs over what defines life and when it starts, so there's no way to get an unequivocal right or wrong verdict.
-
Its totally obvious isnt it? Life begins at 60
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
I can't wait to see what Kazan is gonna say to this...;)
goddamnit pre-emptively attacking other posters in political debates is not cool
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unfortunately, slavery isn't a suitable parallel because there's easy to define why it is wrong.
In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.
In the case of abortion, the issue is basically over the right to life. But the definition of life scientifically differs with the various beliefs over what defines life and when it starts, so there's no way to get an unequivocal right or wrong verdict.
Today, yes. But in the era of slavery there were no universally accepted human rights; those were granted by citizenship, not by humanity, and the former, the slaves did not have. Ergo they did not have the right to freedom. We of course take a different view to that now - and society in the future may well take a different view to the rights of unborn children. But I doubt the argument will be as clear-cut.
-
Originally posted by Janos
goddamnit pre-emptively attacking other posters in political debates is not cool
Eh? I wasn't attacking anyone, dear Janos. :p
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Today, yes. But in the era of slavery there were no universally accepted human rights; those were granted by citizenship, not by humanity, and the former, the slaves did not have. Ergo they did not have the right to freedom. We of course take a different view to that now - and society in the future may well take a different view to the rights of unborn children. But I doubt the argument will be as clear-cut.
In which case we cannot make a law based on upon what may or may not happen in future.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is for me, it's always been like the movies, if you don't want to watch a movie, or don't agree with it's contents, walk past the door, that's what your feet are for.
I feel pretty much the same way about abortion, I wouldn't tell people what movies they should be watching, but I'm intelligent enough to make up my mind for myself :)
This is all well and good for the example you posted, but it differs in the case of those of us who oppose abortion. Put it this way: if you truly believed that millions of innocent people were being slaughtered every year, would you sit by and say nothing? Would you say, "I think what's going on is wrong, but I won't deny others' right to do it?" Probably not. For those of us who believe the fetus represents fully human life, your example is invalid. We are obligated to try and end the loss of life. I realize that most of you don't agree with me, but I think that this particular example, which is used all too frequently, doesn't apply to the whole abortion issue.
Kazan, the last thing I want to do is to get in another flamewar with you. I will say, though, that the abortion issue is not purely a religiously-motivated one. There are many atheists who are part of the pro-life movement.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
This is all well and good for the example you posted, but it differs in the case of those of us who oppose abortion. Put it this way: if you truly believed that millions of innocent people were being slaughtered every year, would you sit by and say nothing? Would you say, "I think what's going on is wrong, but I won't deny others' right to do it?" Probably not. For those of us who believe the fetus represents fully human life, your example is invalid. We are obligated to try and end the loss of life. I realize that most of you don't agree with me, but I think that this particular example, which is used all too frequently, doesn't apply to the whole abortion issue.
Kazan, the last thing I want to do is to get in another flamewar with you. I will say, though, that the abortion issue is not purely a religiously-motivated one. There are many atheists who are part of the pro-life movement.
you can't prove it is a loss of life, though, because you can't prove it is life; not by any method other than your own belief, or an assumption that the fetus can and will develop into a healthy living child.
I wouldn't use this as a specific corollary, but many of the worst things in history have been done for the common good; however feverently you may believe something, it doesn't make it correct to force that upon another. In many ways it could be considered akin to forcing parts or even indeed all of Shariah law upon you..
-
I think I'll just sit on this too, got to much moddeling to do, can't get in a huge flamewar at this moment, can you start one maybe next week.:D
-
I don't consider this a flamewar, just a frank exchange of views & counter-views.
-
Of course, it is ironic that this is a new issue due to the fact that before modern medicine except for a few folks no one knew about fetuses, etc. and didn't debate about their rights.
The official stance of the Catholic church was that life began during quickening. (when first feeling it kicking)
Now with modern medicine the fetus can be directly observed so this huge "moral debate" has begun.
I support the choice of abortion for one reason: It creates a battlefront that keeps people from destroying the true reproductive right: contraceptives.
-
Originally posted by Ace
The official stance of the Catholic church was that life began during quickening. (when first feeling it kicking)
Pity that the bible didn't say that. Would have saved a hell of a lot of arguments :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Not to have a go at you but I find it interesting to hear someone describing something his own deity says is okay in such strong terms.
The Bible never condones slavery; it may be permitted but it isn't held as morally beneficial. Same with divorce and polygamy.
Consider this verse...Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:21-23).
And don't forget that slavery was abolished in Britain (and subsequently in America) thanks in a large part to Christian influence.
Originally posted by aldo_14
In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.
I could turn this around and say that all you have to do is show that unborn children are human, thus they deserve not to be aborted. ;) Or I could even say that since there's uncertainly about whether it's a life, we should err on the side of preserving life as a matter of ethics.
-
Well, since the Bible was written by human, what stops someone in the Church to do this ?
.......
I'm gonna have to stop egging the Christian on, or I'm sure I will get extra-crispy otherwise :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Problem is we've done this so many times....... technically, though, in the former case you are only depriving the foetus of the right to live (skirting over the issue of whether a foetus is considered alive) if the mother chooses to make that choice.
Choice by itself isn't dangerous; the consequences of that choice made can be.
I'm just tired of this feeling that there are two sides to the debate: There are liberal babykillers, and then there are sexist religious conservatives. I read this thread and I see people griping because the US is imposing civil rights 'progress'. What exactly does that mean? It seems to me that it's some arbitrary label, that can apply to complete opposites of the same side. Unless you believe in complete anarchy, more 'rights' aren't necessarily a good thing. Nor do I see this as being some sort of equal rights progress, because most of the opinion's I've heard have been to grant unequal decision power. (See the last debate on this topic) It's always the mother's right to choose, not the childbearer. As many feminists are always quick to add when someone uses the male pronoun rather than a gender neutral one, that makes a difference. (I'm not exactly a big supporter of affirmative action - better to weed out corruption than to encourage counter-corruption, IMHO).
Anyway, so I don't see this as a victory on China's part, or some grand crusade on part of the US's part, just two different ideologies in conflict.
Edit:Or I could even say that since there's uncertainly about whether it's a life, we should err on the side of preserving life as a matter of ethics.
Actually, that's sort of where I am. Aborting a baby for some arbitrary reason seems unreasonably cold to me, but I do recognize there's more of a responsibility and a risk in having the baby than just saying, "Well, let's go ahead with it!" :p Especially since AFAIK the couple will end up with the medical bills, which nowadays are oretty hefty.
But just try and legislate that. ;)
-
Unless you believe in complete anarchy, more 'rights' aren't necessarily a good thing.
There is a practical reason why rights are a safe default: The more restrictions you impose, the more unstable the society becomes. Where possible, it's usually safer to let people make their own decisions, just so they don't explode.
The problem is, rights/liberties are almost always debated on emotional grounds-- "we deserve this right because it's right", etc. This tends to make the advocates rather obnoxious people, but their protests are mass psychology at work, and it's a dangerous thing to brush aside.
EDIT: Haha! "Chr!stofascist" is taboo now. Ah well, it was corny anyway.
-
it's pretty pathetic when the admins start word filtering valid political science terms
-
I don't think abortion should be taken lightly, but I do believe its up to the mother and / or father to decide what happens.
A fetous is not a human. It's a form of life yes, but until it starts kicking, I don't think its much of an issue.
Plus as pregnancy goes on, its more unlikely the mother would wish to part with it.
But banning abortion completely is plain outright bigotry against non-believers of certain religeons.
-
But banning abortion completely is plain outright bigotry against non-believers of certain religeons.
Why?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I could turn this around and say that all you have to do is show that unborn children are human, thus they deserve not to be aborted. ;) Or I could even say that since there's uncertainly about whether it's a life, we should err on the side of preserving life as a matter of ethics.
But can you - What defines 'human'; DNA, or life? The 'preservation of life' is a moot point if you cannot define if life itself exists to be preserved.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I'm just tired of this feeling that there are two sides to the debate: There are liberal babykillers, and then there are sexist religious conservatives.
I don't understand that view, particularly 'liberal babykillers'; insofar as I can tell no-one has said abortion is 'a good thing', just that it may be necessary and should be preserved as an option.... it's a characterisation (not one I'm blaming you for, I mean for the general cons arguement) I hate, because it's simply a lie to elicit an emotive choice. I support the choice, I may or may not support the (a individual) act of abortion depending on the circumstances of it.
I don't see the against arguement as sexist myself, either; I understand the basis of it ("life begins at conception and should be sacred and inviolate" IIRC), I respect the right to hold it, I simply don't think others should be held to it.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I read this thread and I see people griping because the US is imposing civil rights 'progress'. What exactly does that mean? It seems to me that it's some arbitrary label, that can apply to complete opposites of the same side. Unless you believe in complete anarchy, more 'rights' aren't necessarily a good thing.
You're confusing 'right' with 'civil right', though. The 'civil' part is a quantifier that prevents anarchy and lawlessness being validated through the issue of individual rights.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Nor do I see this as being some sort of equal rights progress, because most of the opinion's I've heard have been to grant unequal decision power. (See the last debate on this topic) It's always the mother's right to choose, not the childbearer. As many feminists are always quick to add when someone uses the male pronoun rather than a gender neutral one, that makes a difference. (I'm not exactly a big supporter of affirmative action - better to weed out corruption than to encourage counter-corruption, IMHO).
Abortion by nature is always going to be unequal; it's a medical procedure, and it's one persons life at stake - the mother, not the father (again, there's the issue of when you believe the childs life begins that comes to the fore here). It's not a gender bias, just sheer medical pragmatism.
In a sense, granting equality in that decision would actually be achieving the opposite - denying the mother equality as she would be subject to a 3rd party decision, yet one which she could not reciprocate. For a (loose) example, perhaps then the wife/girlfriend should be given a veto if a man wants to go and have a vasectomy? (this is possibly veering sharply back into the previous topic anyways, so I'll stop that line here)
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Anyway, so I don't see this as a victory on China's part, or some grand crusade on part of the US's part, just two different ideologies in conflict.
Well, China has a vested interest in abortion anyways (except for HK), but IMO it's very noticeable that reportedly only the Vatican supported the US in this; and would seem to include any of the more religious countries at the pre-conference,
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Why?
Denial of free choice irrespective of religion. Any ban would be based upon a religious belief over the beginning of life (as there is no scientific evidence to support it AFAIK), and thus would impose that belief (or rather, its consequences) upon everyone.
-
[q] it may be permitted but it isn't held as morally beneficial[/q]
That still falls under the definition of it being "ok".
-
to put more fine of a point on one aldo's saying
a "featus" does not becoming an individual (And therefore even able to be CONSIDERED in a court of law) until very late in the third trimester when it becomes able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of modern medical technology
as one british lawmaker put it: "any other opinion is religious"
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
EDIT: Haha! "Chr!stofascist" is taboo now. Ah well, it was corny anyway.
yes terms that are constructed for accuracy and self-explanatory nature are "corny"
i could switch to the mouthful: "totalitarian theocrats"
-
I find it amusing how primitive bacteria on another planet is considered "life" by science and intelligent people, yet an unborn fetus isn't....
-
I thought the argument here was being human, not alive...
If the argument was using "life" instead of "human", then everybody would be guilty of mass murder.
As you were... :nervous:
-
I consider the use of 'christofacist' to come pretty close to meeting Gdwins' Law, in all honesty.
It strikes me as deliberately insulting to call your opponents (i.e. those who disagree) facists, and that's not normally a good way to have a proper discussion. Particularly on a single point of belief; I would imagine it's not all that different to me being called an 'immoral heathen' (which I think someone effectively called europe as a whole in another thread....) for my particular opinions.
-
aldo_14 then you don't know what godwin's law means or says
A) there is a validity exemption to godwin's law
B) nazis = fascist but fascists != nazis
basically you're sticking your underinformed foot in your mouth so kindly STFU on stuff that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about
I call them fascists BECAUSE THEY FIT THE DEFINITION OF FASCISTS
//annoyed at aldo's ignorance and the insulting nature of his presumptioous opinion
-
Kazan, my point is that the best points have to be made in the best way, with a tone that encourages due consideration and fair dismissal. To do so otherwise means that any existing factual basis loses credibility with the posters own tone.
I think you've proven that for me - Thank you.
-
no i've just given you another opportunity to act sanctimonious (Sp?)
christofascism is a (the) proper political science term for the movement, just because you cannot keep "fascists are not nazis, but nazis are fascists" straight in your head isn't my fault.
As for "with a tone that encourage due consideration" - that requires an expectance of the other side to _EVER_ give due consideration which is NEVER going to happen due to their mindset: they don't listen to reason, they listen to no one but their own delusions and manipulations of those delusions
-
I beg to differ with your tone & attitude, but that would be to drag this thread off-topic. I don't believe acting for a bit of politeness is sanctimonious, but maybe you consider 'STFU' more appropriate for measured conversation?
I will point out that I said 'pretty close to meeting Godwins Law', in that it's a fairly tacit attempt to use the crimes of notorious regimes, associated individuals or ideologies to draw a negative comparison, often in a disproportionate way to the actual single issue.
Of course, you can feel free to carry on ranting if you wish. Personally, I'd rather dissect the various arguements and counter arguements in a way that doesn't have people replying with caps lock and underscores to denote the spittle on their monitor.
Now, where were we?
Abortion, I think.......
-
Do you want to know whats funny, is that killing unborn babys are not murder and you can't get a felony having an abortion, but if I go out and open up a grave and steal their clothes I can get put in jail for years.
And off the abortion thing, do you know that you can get a much longer prison sentence for hurting a dog, than the morons who beat their children, who most of the time don't get no jail time at all, DHR just takes away their kids, and 6 months later, they get them back, and it happens all over again. Thats what gets me steamed, :mad2:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
....but if I go out and open up a grave and steal their clothes I can get put in jail for years.
And you know this from experience? :lol:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Do you want to know whats funny, is that killing unborn babys are not murder and you can't get a felony having an abortion, but if I go out and open up a grave and steal their clothes I can get put in jail for years.
What's your point? That desecration of graves should be allowed? Because there's no parallel there atall; the fundamental issue behind abortion is, are foetuses alive in the first place? Do they exist as a legal, living entity which would be considered as being 'killed', or as a collection of cells? And if the latter, and you still think abortion should be stopped, then surely cells in a petri dish shouldn't be used for research either? (because, biologically, they are the same thing).
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And off the abortion thing, do you know that you can get a much longer prison sentence for hurting a dog, than the morons who beat their children, who most of the time don't get no jail time at all, DHR just takes away their kids, and 6 months later, they get them back, and it happens all over again. Thats what gets me steamed, :mad2:
Alright, that's simply Ot anyways. And I'm not sure it even applies over here.
-
No I think people who open greaves should be punished, it's that most people care more about a pile of bones than what will be born someday. And that is about what I ment will the other thing, people care more about the Animals, than their Children, and that is basicly what our law says, I pretty sure if you beat your children back a hunded years ago, they might string you up for it, but if you shot someone's dog, you would probley just have to buy the owner a new one, but now it has reversed.
I'm sorry I'm just blowing off some steam.:doubt:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No I think people who open greaves should be punished, it's that most people care more about a pile of bones than what will be born someday. And that is about what I ment will the other thing, people care more about the Animals, than their Children, and that is basicly what our law says, I pretty sure if you beat your children back a hunded years ago, they might string you up for it, but if you shot someone's dog, you would probley just have to buy the owner a new one, but now it has reversed.
I think that isn't true in the slightest. Firstly, in the former there seems to be some vague characterisation that by supporting abortion - the choice of it, rather - you are somehow advocating killing babies. That's not true; all I am saying is that this is a medical procedure to remove a foreign object - which is what a child is until it develops into a legally living stage - and that it should be available as a treatment in the appropriate circumstances.
The key issue obviously is whether you consider a foetus to be a child before the scientifically defined point of life. That's obviously a deeply personal view, and one which I don;t expect or ask you to change any more than I would change my own view.
What I'm asking is, really, that people can understand that view can differ (and in many, many different ways, too), it's equally legitimate to do so, and please just let people make that decision for themselves rather than legislate it upon them.
On the subject of child cruelty, I think it'd be very rare you'll find an abused child being returned to the parent doing the abusing; I think possibly what you're thinking is really that it feels like you can't punish some of these people enough.
I suspect the beating of children may have actually been more common 100 years ago, though - but it would have been accepted as part of 'discipline'.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
scientifically defined point of life.
which is the only definition the law can consider in a democratic country with the seperation of church and state
Originally posted by aldo_14
What I'm asking is, really, that people can understand that view can differ (and in many, many different ways, too), it's equally legitimate to do so, and please just let people make that decision for themselves rather than legislate it upon them.
and aldo introduces the hammer to the nail's head
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
On the subject of child cruelty, I think it'd be very rare you'll find an abused child being returned to the parent doing the abusing; I think possibly what you're thinking is really that it feels like you can't punish some of these people enough.
I suspect the beating of children may have actually been more common 100 years ago, though - but it would have been accepted as part of 'discipline'.
Sadly that is not true, Belive me, my family is a foster home, The only way they will take away a child right off the bat, is if they nearly kill it, otherwise, lets say a broken arm, maybe a few broken ribs, and DHR steps up right away to give the stupid idiots another chance. And then They give the child right back to e'm, they come back into DHR care with more injuries, and guess what happens next they give them another chance. Trust me, I've herd storys that would make you want to beat those morons so bad you can't tell what they are after you're done, and DHR gives the Child right back to them.:mad2: And if they finally come back 4 or 5 times then they take the child away permently, and let them have a good home.
-
weatherop is right about DHR/DHS/whatever-your-state-calls-it
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I find it amusing how primitive bacteria on another planet is considered "life" by science and intelligent people, yet an unborn fetus isn't....
And yet we exterminate bacteria by the trillions every day. Why? Cause bacteria have no capacity to feel pain so if they get in the way there is nothing morally wrong in killing them.
-
just like a featus isn't an individual, so cannot be considered a legal entity
-
Has the thought ever come to you, "what if they do feel pain", or do you just not want to think about it?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Has the thought ever come to you, "what if they do feel pain", or do you just not want to think about it?
So you want to stop killing bacteria?
Verywell,
stop breathing... oh wait
stop walking... oh wait
stop talking... oh wait
stop living... oh wait
stop aging... oh wait
(...)
You get the point... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Has the thought ever come to you, "what if they do feel pain", or do you just not want to think about it?
No brain. No pain.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
No brain. No pain.
I'd also like to add - no Central Nervous System, either. So there's not the system which produces pain signals, nor the organ which processes them.
Originally posted by Kazan
weatherop is right about DHR/DHS/whatever-your-state-calls-it
Well, I'm not aware of that in the UK. There have been some pretty apalling cases where neglect has been missed, but not that - I can remember - where a child has been returned to a convicted an abuser. Possibly I'm wrong - I've not exactly done comprehensive research today - but I don't believe that from my (UK) perspective society views animals as having more rights than children.
-
Hmmm, I was sure the heart of an infant starts beating around 3 weeks after concpetion, And I was sure your brain is what tells your heart to beat. Wait, some how I know that this will take us to another religion thread, so I will shut up now.:nod:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Hmmm, I was sure the heart of an infant starts beating around 3 weeks after concpetion, And I was sure your brain is what tells your heart to beat. Wait, some how I know that this will take us to another religion thread, so I will shut up now.:nod:
IIRC the parts of the brain which deal with pain (i.e. handle nerve impulse), cognitive thought, etc, only become active at 24-25 weeks.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'd also like to add - no Central Nervous System, either. So there's not the system which produces pain signals, nor the organ which processes them.
I was going to say that but it didn't rhyme :p
-
I think pro-choice people make too much of an effort to weasel their way around the issue by debating what constitutes human life.
I recognize that a fetus is human life; I just don't have a problem with killing it. What good can come from someone having a child who doesn't want it? It just seems to me that a large part of the anti-choice movement is about punishing the mother for "immoral" behavior, rather than protecting a baby who nobody genuinely cares about anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
rather than protecting a baby who nobody genuinely cares about anyway.
Dude, you are so wrong, There are thousands of people who would like to adopt, you know that mother could get her entire Hospital bill paid by someone who wants that baby. All she has to do is give it up at birth, and that baby would go to someone who would love it, and she wouldn't be charged with a felony for leaving it there.There are also thousands of people who want kids but can't have e'm. But, the reason they choose abortion is because it is their baby wether they want it or not, I hear alot about that being in a Foster Family, they don't want the baby to love, but they like the power of saying "that is MY kid, and I'll do what I want with it".
-
There are thousands of kids in orphanages and care homes. Give them a place to live first and maybe someone would believe you.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I think pro-choice people make too much of an effort to weasel their way around the issue by debating what constitutes human life.
I recognize that a fetus is human life; I just don't have a problem with killing it.
I disagree completely. A foetus is not a human life. It's a potential human life no different from a sperm on it's way to the egg. There's nothing magical that happens at the actual point of conception.
Just as the sperm might not actually fertilise the egg there's a chance that the embryo might not implant.
-
If DHR would stop juggleing the kids around for years, they would get adopted, or the stupid parents would give e'm up..Foster familyes would adopt alot of e'm, if DHR would let e'm instead sends e'm back to their parents. After you've got attached to them, and they have been taken and put back with the parents, it's very hard to countinue, and that is where most quit.:doubt:
-
Then go after the DHR first. Prove your supposition that there is a family for every single unwanted child first then start complaining about abortion.
It seems to me that children who are alive and here and dying of neglect are more worthy of your time than campaigning about unwanted, unborn (and according to some of us unalive) children.
You've even got a sympathetic president for Jebus's sake! Who's in charge of DHR? Oh yes. It's YOUR government. Why isn't Bush trying to prove that there is someone who actually wants these kids in America instead of trying to get motions passes to have more of them everywhere else in the world.
-
Thats the only problem goverment is goverment, no matter who's in charge at the White House. And anyways Bush couldn't do that much more without the Senate and House's approval. But there should be more done tho. DHR really needs to change, but It is really the state goverments who should do something about it.:doubt:
-
Then lobby them. The Pro-life movement spends thousends of man-hours lobbying, complaining and picketing. Why not spend that time on getting something done about something that both sides agree needs serious change.
You make it sound like the whole pro-life movement are incapable of pursuading anyone to change their minds. If that's the case they might as well pack up and go home instead of picketing abortion clinics and shooting doctors.
Why not picket congress and shoot congressmen instead? :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
to put more fine of a point on one aldo's saying
a "featus" does not becoming an individual (And therefore even able to be CONSIDERED in a court of law) until very late in the third trimester when it becomes able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of modern medical technology
as one british lawmaker put it: "any other opinion is religious"
Anyone else besides me think that this particular opinion is royally ****ed up? So by your definition, Kazan, anyone relying on a pacemaker or respirator to survive is no longer an individual, since they can't survive without the aid of modern medical technology? I don't care what you believe about abortion; Kazan's statement is just plain messed up. Late third trimester? How the hell can you justify that? So, all the preemies born at 24 weeks don't count either? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yup, Kazan comes back, and any political/religious discussion is immediately shot to hell. Ain't it grand?
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Anyone else besides me think that this particular opinion is royally ****ed up? So by your definition, Kazan, anyone relying on a pacemaker or respirator to survive is no longer an individual, since they can't survive without the aid of modern medical technology? I don't care what you believe about abortion; Kazan's statement is just plain messed up. Late third trimester? How the hell can you justify that? So, all the preemies born at 24 weeks don't count either? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yup, Kazan comes back, and any political/religious discussion is immediately shot to hell. Ain't it grand?
Actually, Kazans statement is a different situation altogther. firstly, the issue is not about the foetus being an individual but alive. A person on a respirator is medically alive, even if it is through artificial means. A foetus has yet to reach the state of having been alive.
-
No there something elso to think about, when Medical tech is high enough for all babys to live outside the human body, will abortion be outlawed then?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No there something elso to think about, when Medical tech is high enough for all babys to live outside the human body, will abortion be outlawed then?
At that stage it would be petri dish reproduction, though, which would give a whole different social system regarding sex. When all foetuses can be brought to 'life' outside the womb, it means the womb itself becomes redundant, as does the use of sex for reproduction. ... so it'd be plausible that abortion itself would be unecessary, as everyone could have their DNA (or sperm & eggs) harvested and stored, and then be vasectomised for pregnancy-free sex.
-
Denial of free choice irrespective of religion. Any ban would be based upon a religious belief over the beginning of life (as there is no scientific evidence to support it AFAIK), and thus would impose that belief (or rather, its consequences) upon everyone.
No way.
Even going by what's known about the developmental process, setting an arbitrary limit based on generalizations doesn't fly as 'science'. It's even less definite than whatever the bible must be saying constitutes human life. Of course, I haven't actually seen anyone post relevant passages, but everyone seems to assume there's something in the bible that says it's true. :doubt:
To get science truly involved, you have to recognize that there is a difference in the rate of development. It's pretty uniform; but I have a hard time believing that at 5 months 29 days, a foetus has no brain and no capacity to feel pain, but then at 6 months, it suddenly does.
Scientific evidence which does support it? High-school Biology, actually. After fertilization, the DNA of a Foetus is that of a human. It has a full set of 23(46) chromosomes. If given time, it will eventually grow and develop into a human being, provided it isn't naturally aborted (or, of course, artificially aborted).
Going further on, when the baby is born, it is a separate entity from its mother, but it still requires care. It is incapable of many of the things that ordinary humans are. It is not biologically entwined its mother's body system, however, but I think the main difference is that it can interact with other people. Most people (myself included) find the thought of killing a baby post-birth repulsive, regardless of how many months old it is.
To me, this seems to be based mostly on an individual basis. I know there was a group of people who were talking about or trying to get it legalized to 'abort' from conception to 2 years after birth. Does that mean they are less religious than people on this board? Doubt it. We've got/had some pretty dedicated atheists here. ;) I do think it means that they operate on a different code, I'll say, than other people. I can see different ideologies playing a part in making the decision as to what 'human life' really is, but I don't think that religion is the only difference in ideology that exists.
Anyway, regarding civil rights, defining civil is another grey area. What happens when one person's 'right' bumps into another? If I play a Britney Spears song, when does my right to exercise 'freedom of expression' violate my neighbor's right from 'cruel and unusual punishment'? ;)
-
I think that is pretty well said,WMCoolmon
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And I was sure your brain is what tells your heart to beat.
there is your error
the heart hase it's own seperate mininervous system for internal pacekeeping
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No there something elso to think about, when Medical tech is high enough for all babys to live outside the human body, will abortion be outlawed then?
no, that's why there is a claus in the definition "Without the aid of medical technology"
without that claus you'd be changing from attempting to force the mt o do something they don't want to do, to forcing them to pay for something they don't want to do
-
WMC: it's a seperate entity when it becomes able to live outside of it's mothers body without the aid of modern medical technology
obviously the varies from child to child so you have to set the "Average"
it's has nothing to do with whether it's "life" let alone "human life" (as if we're so ****ing special) - it's "Whether it is an individual" - the court CAN ONLY consider individuals
once someone gains individuality it's not lost -
there went all of mongoose's suppoisitions out the window
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Yup, Kazan comes back, and any political/religious discussion is immediately shot to hell. Ain't it grand?
just because you're unwilling (incapable?) to listen to a complex answer in favor of your totalitarian theocratic answer doesn't mean the discussion is immediately shot to hell
infact your making this statement shows exactly why you don't belong thinking your opinion has any validity
educate thyself before opening thy mouth!
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
No way.
Even going by what's known about the developmental process, setting an arbitrary limit based on generalizations doesn't fly as 'science'. It's even less definite than whatever the bible must be saying constitutes human life. Of course, I haven't actually seen anyone post relevant passages, but everyone seems to assume there's something in the bible that says it's true. :doubt:
To get science truly involved, you have to recognize that there is a difference in the rate of development. It's pretty uniform; but I have a hard time believing that at 5 months 29 days, a foetus has no brain and no capacity to feel pain, but then at 6 months, it suddenly does.
Scientific evidence which does support it? High-school Biology, actually. After fertilization, the DNA of a Foetus is that of a human. It has a full set of 23(46) chromosomes. If given time, it will eventually grow and develop into a human being, provided it isn't naturally aborted (or, of course, artificially aborted).
Going further on, when the baby is born, it is a separate entity from its mother, but it still requires care. It is incapable of many of the things that ordinary humans are. It is not biologically entwined its mother's body system, however, but I think the main difference is that it can interact with other people. Most people (myself included) find the thought of killing a baby post-birth repulsive, regardless of how many months old it is.
I disagree with that definition of life; my definition of life - human life - (and what I think is close to the scientific and medical basis) requires consciousness, intelligence and active thought towards life processed. DNA alone does not constitute life IMO; it just provides a recipe for it.
My understanding is that life is defined in terms of development by the beginnings of the appropriate electrical signals within the brain, denoting mental activity.
The issue of life outside the body is not related to care, but physical necessity; a baby can see and consume food, drink, etc of an appropriate sort once given, and it can of course breathe. It's organs can process that food.
The foetus cannot; it is reliant upon the biological processes of the mother to convey its nutrition. It's physical body is incapable of sustaining itself.
What you are defining as generalizations are really just guidelines. Abortions in most countries require the approval of a doctor - in the UK it's 2 - to gain clinical oversight and avoid the situation you describe.
-
Kazan, you've been warned before. Attack the argument, not the person.
I'm sure these threads can continue without you. Another incident and you'll be a Hard Light Monkey again.
-
goober if you're going to warn me, warn them too
double standards are great when they work in your favor aren't they?
-
They haven't insulted anyone, (as far as I can recall) Kazan.
-
go read mongoose's post again
------------
oh btw: if you think it's insulting someone to tell them to know their facts before opening their mouths then you think debate itself is insulting because debate IS the art of telling the other person they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground!
-
AHEM...
The only person who's insulted anybody in this thread is you, Kazan...the religious right are a bunch of hypocritical extremists who's "Solution" to every problem involved A) forcing other people to do things and B) total bull**** beliefs
kindly STFU on stuff that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about
they listen to no one but their own delusions and manipulations of those delusions
just because you're unwilling (incapable?)
your totalitarian theocratic answer
debate IS the art of telling the other person they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground!
Those are all insults.
Debates are permitted in this forum, provided nobody engages in name-calling, insults, or flaming. Anyone who does is warned. If they continue despite the warning, they are temporarily banned from Hard Light. If they continue elsewhere, they are banned from the board.
Capisce?
-
ok goober - now warn the other parties or prove me right
(im going to force this - im not going to tolerate double standards - just becaue they aren't as blatant as i am, but they are more insulting because they are presuming)
-
Well, in Kazan's defense, this could fairly easily be construed as an insult:
Yup, Kazan comes back, and any political/religious discussion is immediately shot to hell. Ain't it grand?
at least as much as this:
debate IS the art of telling the other person they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground!
or this:
your totalitarian theocratic answer
But yeah, you could tone it down a bit Kazan. Just cuz someone implies something, doesn't necessarily mean you have to one-up them in insults. You could just tear up their argument.
-
jetmech: i grow tired of ripping the same arguement to shreds daily and having them play the three-monkeys
-
I disagree completely. A foetus is not a human life. It's a potential human life no different from a sperm on it's way to the egg. There's nothing magical that happens at the actual point of conception.
It's human life in that it's an organism, and it sure as hell won't grow into a rabbit. I certainly agree that conception is nothing magical, but my point is really that it's a gray area of semantics and emotional connotations.
-
Did you know:
- For the first two weeks a human foetus is identical to any other animal foetus.
I agree with aldo_14.
Once intelligence and self awareness comes into play, then I'd hesitate.
But in the end, it should come down to how the mother wants to proceed.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It's human life in that it's an organism, and it sure as hell won't grow into a rabbit. I certainly agree that conception is nothing magical, but my point is really that it's a gray area of semantics and emotional connotations.
precisely
-
Humans can become emotionally attached to a blanket as well as fellow human.
Slightly different things yes, but thats why the mother should have the last say. Within common sense guidelines.
-
wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks? Yes i do remember reading that. In order for brainwaves to be produced, it would infer that there is a brain active during that time...as oposed to a person who is on life support in a hospital and showing no brain activity.
This would also infer a cetral nervous system...of sorts.
No brain no pain? brain. pain? see that's my whole problem with this abortion issue. when does life begin? as far as i am concerned, it begins when brain waves are detected. Now i didn't bother to check up on that statement for validity, but if it is true, then by the admission of some of the people in here, life begins as early as two weeks into the pregnancy. brainwaves are very much individual, so then it would stand to reason that the unborn is an individual as early as two weeks.
I know i read it in the other thread, but can't remember who wrote it, and i am to0o damned tired to go hunting. I am going to operate on the assumption that this is factual, if someone would like to prove that wrong, then please do so, and maybe my way of thinking can be changed. Then again, porbably not.
as soon as those cells divide and attach, i tihnk that it should be considered a human life. that is my emotional response. my logical response is the above stated.
But to be perfectly honest, i lean ALOT more toward my emotional side in this issue. A mother should not have the right to decide alone whether a child that is yet unborn should live or die. I disagree with pro choice, because contrary to popular belief in here, Life should not be an alternative to abortion. Life should be given a chance. I think that this is a particularly heinous act, in that, in my opinion, life starts alot earlier than the law says it does, so we are killing defenseless children. We murder for birth control. The daughter of a friend of mine, (she lived with her mother) has had no less than 6 abortions. I think that this borders on just plain ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks?
A) brainwaves != consciousness
B) brainwaves != able to survive outside of mothers body without the aid of medical technology
-
and there is a difference between killing that unborn child, and pulling the plug on someone. in the case of the child, if left alone, they will probably continue to develop, in the case of the person on medical life support, if left alone they will do nothing.
that arguement is invalid kazan. nowhere did i mention consciousness, or the ability to survive outside the womb. It was merely to point out that brainwaves mean that there is a brain present as early as two weeks. Now if you would like to show me where this is in fact NOT true, i will be more than happy to listen to you about it.
-
i want you to show me the medical documents that say that brainwaves can be detected at 2 weeks because im calling BS
(PS: the court doesn't deal in "can be" - and it cannot consider something that is not an individual - in the eyes of the court non-individuals do not exist)
-
If you read the first post, then you know where i got the bit of information, and you also knowq that i am tired and don't feel like hunting. Call BS if you like, or go hunt for yourself if you want to change my mind. I also said that if you would like to find something that would prove that statement to be false i would be more than willing to listen to you about it. That was sincere and not sarcastic. and it still stands.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Clicky. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1427583,00.html)
Right now, I'm trying very much not to bash the US government upside down. Since Kazan's back, and with Rictor lurking, I think I'll let them do it, they're so much more experienced at this than me
:D
Still, sad to see than even China is doing better on human rights than the USA (or at least its government).
I would like to draw attention away from the pro-life vs pro-choice argument and back to the original intent of this thread for a moment. Genryu states that China is doing a better job on human rights than the USA...especially in light of this article.
Lets just for a moment look at China... China imposes Birth Control Policies on its people, and limits the number of children a family can have. This is Human Rights? (And yes...I do see the problem of over population there, so you needen't point that out) Families with only one child (most likely a boy--having elliminated any girls which may have been born first) are given preferential treatment. It even rewards women who abort their children.
So when we talk about abortion in China, we need to consider the total picture... not just the right/wrong, of abortion itself.
I would venture a guess the the US seeks more stringent controls on the abortion issue in China because the Bejing conference was about equal rights for Chinese women--Including the right for a girl-child to not be aborted because it wasn't a male.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I would like to draw attention away from the pro-life vs pro-choice argument and back to the original intent of this thread for a moment. Genryu states that China is doing a better job on human rights than the USA...especially in light of this article.
Lets just for a moment look at China... China imposes Birth Control Policies on its people, and limits the number of children a family can have. This is Human Rights? (And yes...I do see the problem of over population there, so you needen't point that out) Families with only one child (most likely a boy--having elliminated any girls which may have been born first) are given preferential treatment. It even rewards women who abort their children.
So when we talk about abortion in China, we need to consider the total picture... not just the right/wrong, of abortion itself.
I would venture a guess the the US seeks more stringent controls on the abortion issue in China because the Bejing conference was about equal rights for Chinese women--Including the right for a girl-child to not be aborted because it wasn't a male.
If the US position was based on that (rather than faith), don't you think someone else would have agreed with them? This was a conference for Womens Rights, remember - they're not exactly likely to endorse a (10 year old) document allowing gender discrimination as a reason for abortion. (EDIT; it prohibits it, anyways)
Besides which, this doesn't have a single bloody thing to do with China or the Chinese government beyond the fact the document came from a conference held in China. It's not a Chinese document, it's a United Nations one.
See http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/off/a--20.en (specifically section 106 k), i) and especially section 277 c) (which specifically prohibits the sex-bias you're referring to). If you want to know the US position at the time, it's in section 30; the Vatican perspective is 11, and has a go against unmarried relationships, the right to choose sexual orientation and generally reinterprets everything to fit their own stuff.
And the Iranians have a go about the whole thing in general in a subtle way ('importance of the family unit' and soforth;i.e. we don't want equal male-female rights).
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks?
I'm certainly not going to take that as proof of anything. I'd want to see the comparison against other living creatures and embryos of other animals before it can be taken of proof of anything.
For all we know a beetle may have stronger brainwaves than an embryo twice that age.
-
Well considering that the US objects to the current idea that Abortion is a "human right", it also means that current funding to the UN will be cut from the US to support such things as the encouraged abortions in China. I, as a tax payer, feel much better that my money would be channeled towards abstinence programs rather than funding countries that support "abortion as birth control" around the world.
You can say that a fetus isn't human all you want....but as Ford Prefect pointed out, it sure won't develop into a rabbit. I hope the US holds it's stance.
Hmmmm... Wikipedia says this:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Abortion, refers to the voluntary or induced murder of an unborn human being, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Well considering that the US objects to the current idea that Abortion is a "human right", it also means that current funding to the UN will be cut from the US to support such things as the encouraged abortions in China. I, as a tax payer, feel much better that my money would be channeled towards abstinence programs rather than funding countries that support "abortion as birth control" around the world.
Actually, that means the Us will oppose all funding for any part of the womens rights treaty (you can't pick and choose the human rights you want to implement from these agreements). Oddly enough, that includes the right to choose sexuality and the protections against forced abortion within there.
Originally posted by Sapphire
You can say that a fetus isn't human all you want....but as Ford Prefect pointed out, it sure won't develop into a rabbit. I hope the US holds it's stance.
That's not the issue, though. It's not about whether or not the foetus is human, it's about whether it is alive at the point when abortion is legal.
Originally posted by Sapphire
Hmmmm... Wikipedia says this:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Abortion, refers to the voluntary or induced murder of an unborn human being, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place.
That's because Wikipedia - being open to free public editing - was changed to a biased entry. If you check the revisions page and current text (amongst a host of changes to remove previous vandalism and POV statements), you'll see that's been reverted to;
[q]Abortion, in its most common usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place. Medically, the term also refers to the early termination of a pregnancy by natural causes ("spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage), which ends one in five of all pregnancies, usually within the first thirteen weeks, or to the cessation of normal growth of a body part or organ.[/q]
Out of curiousity, do you support the death penalty, then? I'd presume not, as it would seem somewhat hypocritical to support a system which actively kills human beings (and not just the guilty ones...) when criticising something which you say has the same effect.
-
US backing down in abortion row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4314181.stm)
Incidentally, on the US anti-abortion policy (denying funding to any group which provides information or advice about abortion); US exports anti-abortion policy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3028820.stm)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, that means the Us will oppose all funding for any part of the womens rights treaty (you can't pick and choose the human rights you want to implement from these agreements).
[/B]
The column said that it was a specific fund they were withholding from-- the UN Population Fund. So in this case the funding has nothing to do with the other rights.
That's not the issue, though. It's not about whether or not the foetus is human, it's about whether it is alive at the point when abortion is legal.
[/B]
Its alive in its unique environment. If someone shoots you into outerspace without benefit of a suit or ship, does the fact that you are unable to sustain yourself in that environment negate the fact that you are a living creature while you were dependent on earth for life support?
That's because Wikipedia - being open to free public editing - was changed to a biased entry. If you check the revisions page and current text (amongst a host of changes to remove previous vandalism and POV statements), you'll see that's been reverted to;
[/B]
Thank you for the education... I was not aware of that :) In otherwords its not a very reliable source...
Out of curiousity, do you support the death penalty, then? I'd presume not, as it would seem somewhat hypocritical to support a system which actively kills human beings (and not just the guilty ones...) when criticising something which you say has the same effect.
Ironically, yes I do.... IF a person is a repeat offender, IF the crime was unprovoked, and IF there was collaborated eye-witnessing of the murder(s). You may say I'm hypocritical, but I cannot in any way, shape or form, compare a fetus (who has done no wrong, other than being unwanted) to that kind of criminal. Now say....if the fetus went on a mindless killing spree I would abort the little sh*t myself....:p :lol:
-
hey Sapphire - do you know that it's a proven fact that "Absistance programs" not only fail, but they make things worse
-
:mad:
-
:ick:
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
The column said that it was a specific fund they were withholding from-- the UN Population Fund. So in this case the funding has nothing to do with the other rights.
The UN population fund is set to address multiple aspects of human rights concerning reproductive activity; i.e. including all the aspects of the Beijing treaty (or agreement), such as sex education, combat of HIV/AIDs, sexual freedom, ect. ( http://www.unfpa.org/about/index.htm )
I can't speak for the bias behind this other source - http://www.uscommittee.org/myth.html - but it states;
The Bush Administration and UNFPA
During his first year in office, President George W. Bush provided funding to UNFPA and Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the agency in his public testimony to Congress. The Administration also requested additional assistance for UNFPA to support emergency efforts undertaken to help Afghan refugees in the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban.
In 2002 the Administration abruptly put funding on hold, UNFPA’s work in China. A State Department team traveled to China to determine whether or not UNFPA supports or participates in the country’s coercive family planning activities. Their report to Secretary of State Colin Powell on May 21, 2002 stated: “We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary stabilization in the [People’s Republic of China]…We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million, which has already been appropriated, be released to UNFPA.”
Ignoring this recommendation, the Bush Administration withheld $34 million in congressionally-approved funding in 2002. The next year $25 million was blocked and another $34 million in 2004.
The Impact of Funding Withdrawal
Concretely, experts estimate that $34 million could prevent:
* 2 million unwanted pregnancies
* 800,000 abortions
* 4,700 maternal deaths
* 77,000 infant and toddler deaths
Originally posted by Sapphire
Its alive in its unique environment. If someone shoots you into outerspace without benefit of a suit or ship, does the fact that you are unable to sustain yourself in that environment negate the fact that you are a living creature while you were dependent on earth for life support?
In space you're immediately dead, so i'm not sure what your point is... what i mean is, the human body when alive is able to provide for itself and sustain itself. It needs certain conditions, of course, but it functions independently within those.
A foetus can't; it relies on a secondary entity to perform that role; it simply cannot live as an independent individual under any conditions because it needs that (for lack of a better word) proxy source.
Originally posted by Sapphire
Thank you for the education... I was not aware of that :) In otherwords its not a very reliable source...
Wikipedia is usually actually fairly reliable, because this sort of stuff gets excised very quickly; there's a very strong emphasis on Neutral Point of View within the 'harcore' community there. It's a very good source for links, at least.
Originally posted by Sapphire
Ironically, yes I do.... IF a person is a repeat offender, IF the crime was unprovoked, and IF there was collaborated eye-witnessing of the murder(s). You may say I'm hypocritical, but I cannot in any way, shape or form, compare a fetus (who has done no wrong, other than being unwanted) to that kind of criminal. Now say....if the fetus went on a mindless killing spree I would abort the little sh*t myself....:p :lol:
And what if the person is innocent? Framed, perhaps? I appreciate you've put a degree of caveat to counter that, but it's still possible, surely? Of course, i just thing execution is the wrong type of punishment altogether, even for the unequivocally guilty.
I think long term prison is a more effective punishment, and I don't think you can gain the moral high ground by killing people. Plus you can't execute people multiple times, i.e. if they are serial/multiple killers. But it's not worth getting into the capital punishment debate here anyways, I was just curious.
EDIT;
Originally posted by Sapphire
Hey Kazan....show me unbiased proof. Abortions are being performed around the world ever day at an incredible rate. No where have I read that pro-abortion programs are "succeeding" in curbing the problem.
I know offhand that studies have discovered that young teenage members of abstinance only programs (I think it was the 'Silver Ring Thing' or something) have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy & VSs than those who have had a standard sexual eduction, as the abstinance kids haven't had adequate education on contraception.
NB: It's 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'. There's no such thing as a pro-abortion programme.... just one which provides complete information on what abortion is and entails, and usually alongside sexual information such as contraception.
Oh, and that second BBC article describes how abortions can increase as the result of a lack of education on contraception (which goes hand-in-hand with abstinance programs)
EDIt; dammn.....long posts today....
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
thank you aldo....I really enjoyed those articles.
I think as long as we are speaking of rights....why doesn't the US have the right to choose what it will fund?
Are these articles saying that the US is the only source of funding for these abortion clinics and programs? And its the only one responsible for carrying on the work of abortionists? So if the US cuts its funding its the Big Bad Guy?
Where is Britain? Can't they cough up more funding if they feel so strongly about the right to abort? How about France? And China....they are very in favor of it. Where's all the bucks from the other countries? Or does everyone feel that its the US's responsibility to carry the majority of the financial burden?
Well, the US is the worlds richest country, for one thing. But I think the main issue is the sudden withdrawal of funds; it's not that other countries don't try to fund this, but they already have full budgets set up... suddenly switching to fund extra places where the US has abandoned funding might be logistically and financially impossible.
China... I don't know. It does plow money into certain governments and organisations, I think, in Africa as part of a strategy of influence and resource access, but I don't know its focus. Athough what China does or doesn't do shouldn't affect how 'good' what the US - or any other country - contribution is, because these things need to be done on individual merits rather than via comparison.
But with regards to specific withdrawal, the US effectively said 'do what we say or we take our money away'... I don't think that's charity. I think that's ideological bribery, and it's probably counter-productive.
Oh, and I'd point out these places aren't abortionists. They offer neutral advice and information on abortion, they don't perform it. They're primarily just family planning / sexual health clinics.
-
Man, Aldo, do you have to post so long?:D
And I think that the number of abortions each year shows what state the world is in, And I bet 98.8% of the abortions that take place out of marriage, and that is sad. :(
-
Only if you hold marriage as a requirement for a loving relationship. It's just sad in general really that it has to happen so often.
-
:hopping:
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Of course, its all related. If people are falling off a cliff....isn't it wiser to put more effort into preventing their falls, than to keep performing surgery on them after they've fallen? Yes. But how do you keep surgery from being the focus if certain groups feel its the easiest and best solution because there has been little personal accountability on the part of the individual in avoiding the fall?
The problem with abstinance programs is that they do nothing to stop a person from having a surgery after they fall off a cliff, even if they are prone to not falling as often as those who were taught on contraception.
Contraception on the other hand does much to stop the fall from leading to surgery.
A better example would be a car accident. Following the same logic as you seem to state, it would be better for cars not to have safety belts and not to teach drivers to go above 50 km/h, which is... ;)
-
:shaking:
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Hmmm... seatbelts and condoms... interesting. Perhaps a person should use both a seatbelt and a condom when having sex in a moving vehicle. And if both fail.....there's always surgery and abortion to make up for the fact that we've been stupid in the first place.
....okay, seriously. I am not against sex-education including teaching forms of birth control. But I believe that abstinence is the first line of defense against pregnancy and std's. Putting an emphasis on that instead of condoning wanton sex would be a wiser solution. Teach first and foremost that there are consequences and responsibilities in sexual activity.... and when sh*t happens, delivering a baby is one of them. Lets not reduce fetus's to non-beings so that aborting them can sit on our consciences better.
Sex education doesn't condone wanton sex. It just educates what sex is, what contraception is, and what the risks of both can be. Hell, sex education is exactly about the consequences and responsibilities.
NB: it's not a reduction; it's the current medical fact.
EDIt; sodding timewarp.
-
I was not talking about abortion... just contraception and abstinance.
Abstinance without contraception is like a driver without a seat belt. Both in use can be used to greatly stop the source of unwanted pregnancies, but if choosing between one of them to stop that source, contraception shows to be the strongest measure.
-
Preaching abstinence to teenagers is as effective as a chocolate fireguard..
-
Sapphire: abortion rates in the US under clinton and under bush as good examples
Clinton pushed comprehensive education -> abortion rate declined
Bush pushes abstinance-only education (aka: ignorance only) -> abortion rate increased
now looking at those aggregate numbers can be misleading because also a good economy lowers the unplanned/unwanted pregnancy rate, and a bad economy does the opposite -- you will have to patiently wait until i get home for me to pull the studies
Preaching absitnence to teenagers is as effective as a chocolate fireguard..
hehe.. bingo :D
Lets not reduce fetus's to non-beings so that aborting them can sit on our consciences better.
don't need to REDUCE them to anything - you're artificially PROMOTING them
until it can survive outsides its mother's body (without the aid of medical technology) then it's NOT an individual - therefore it CANNOT be considered in a court of law
any other argument is religious and therefore would violate the establishment clause
-
additionally: comprehensive education has been PROVEN to reduce the abortion rate - because it reduces the unwannted pregnancy rate
oh.. btw - the studies im quoting are cited in The Fundamentals of Extremism (The Christian Right in America) which makes has all it's source citations (over 900) at the end of it... i really need to buy a copy so i can cite page numbers and then the author's source as well!
-
I just thought of something, do you know that most unborn babys are thought of as robots, their your creation you can do what you want with e'm, and they have no soul or life because their not human.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
But I believe that abstinence is the first line of defense against pregnancy and std's. Putting an emphasis on that instead of condoning wanton sex would be a wiser solution. Teach first and foremost that there are consequences and responsibilities in sexual activity.
I think you'll find that explaining good reasons for abstinence is generally a fairly large part of sex ed. Every class I had when I was kid pushed that kids should think about it fairly seriously before having sex and examine all of the possible concequences including the dangers of getting pregnant.
If you think that good sex ed simply consists of handing out condoms and saying go have sex you're sadly mistaken. In fact a big part of it generally urges you to wait until you're in love at the very least.
What sex ed does differently however is teach kids what do if they are determined to have sex despite that warning. Because this part is missing in abstinence only programs then when the kids do decide to have sex they are forced to rely on rumour and hearsay for information on how to not get pregnant.
Abstinence only programs breed people who believe that having sex in the bath or when standing up is a defence against pregnancy.
Why on Earth would you support that?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
oh.. btw - the studies im quoting are cited in The Fundamentals of Extremism (The Christian Right in America) which makes has all it's source citations (over 900) at the end of it... i really need to buy a copy so i can cite page numbers and then the author's source as well!
That's really your Bible, isn't it? Do you quote from any other source?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I just thought of something, do you know that most unborn babys are thought of as robots, their your creation you can do what you want with e'm, and they have no soul or life because their not human.
eh? That strikes me as a gross over-simplification of the pro-choice arguement and also somewhat of a strawman arguement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument).
-
goober until you start administrating even handedly do not attempt to debate with me as you have NO credibility because you're OBVIOUSLY giving preferential treatment to individuals on your side of the debate!
AND that post is insulting because i cite A LOT OF FARKING SOURCES - you just see that one a lot because A) that book cites >900 sources that i cite anyways B) it puts all the information into pretty concise language
-
Perhaps Goober feels that the very title of the book makes it appear to sound biased, and thus raise the possibility that the sources within have been selected to support an conclusion rather than derive one from them.
Or maybe it's an ironic jab.
-
Aldo, well If you look at it, that is what their thought of.
And Kazan, I don't see Goob giving us good treatment, He has'nt flamed anyone, and all he did was tell you to cool off.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Aldo, well If you look at it, that is what their thought of.
No. Firstly a robot is a mechanical device which is specifically built to perform a task or operation. A baby - or more correctly, a foetus - is a group of un or partially differentiated cells which form an incomplete entity.
Yes, they will most likely develop into a baby and with it 'switch on' the basics of intelligence, but at the specific point in time when they are a foetus they are biologically no more alive than, for example, a tumor. Again, the issue is not whether the foetus is 'human' per se, but whether it is a living individual, with the rights that an individual possesses.
They are not regarded as a commodity as you imply. They are regarded as developing into a human individual, but not yet one. They do not have a soul because, medically, no-one has a soul. The soul is defined as part of a belief structure, not medical science, and can't be relevant to an unbiased medical judgement. And they are not considered alive because they do not have the functionality to survive as individuals.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And they are not considered alive because they do not have the functionality to survive as individuals.
That still gets to me, just because they can't live on their own, their not considered a living thing.
And when I ment Robot, I was talking about that their like an item, they can be destroyed whenever the mother wants. And it kinda goes back to that other subject, alot of people who have AIDS or cancer, wouldn't survive without medical care. I can't remember who said it, but should they be thought of as they can't survive on their own, so their not really a living thing. And it also go's back to when does life start, And I think life starts when the baby first starts forming, if you notice that their is really no jumps, it slowly forms right from conception. And someone said something elso about the baby will not be a rabbit, like that cancer will be cancer, it won't form into something else.
-
My personal beliefs are that a fetus should not be considered human until it is able to survive on it's own if removed from the womb, which means that abortion should be illegal after about seven months. Plus, if you've had the baby for that long, you should end up having it anyway.
Also, an abortion ban would not go into effect, even with the US pushing it.
That's all I'm going to say in this thread.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
That still gets to me, just because they can't live on their own, their not considered a living thing.
And when I ment Robot, I was talking about that their like an item, they can be destroyed whenever the mother wants. And it kinda goes back to that other subject, alot of people who have AIDS or cancer, wouldn't survive without medical care. I can't remember who said it, but should they be thought of as they can't survive on their own, so their not really a living thing. And it also go's back to when does life start, And I think life starts when the baby first starts forming, if you notice that their is really no jumps, it slowly forms right from conception.
Yes, life forms. But you don't get 1% alive, or 2% alive. There's a barrier after which you become alive, and individual. a living thing has to live on its own; the difference between the foetus and a terminally ill patient is that the foetus has not developed that ability. It has never been alive.
The patient has and is; and if you want a valid comparison to a foetus and a human patient, the closest is possibly to imagine a person who is paraplegic, brain damaged or brain dead, partially blind or deaf or dumb, and who is suffering from complete failure in certain organs. The physiological needs of a foetus are not simply equivalent to taking bunch of pills, or even needing weekly dialysis.
That comparison, though, is almost certainly irrelevant to the issue. We are pronounced dead when brain activity ceases. A foetus is still more or less in that same state; the brain has not switched on and became conscious. When it does, the foetus is considered 'alive', i.e. becomes a baby.
But, as I said before (I think to you, maybe Mongoose); our relevant beliefs on when life starts are not the case here. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine. The issue here is to have the choice of those beliefs, and prohibiting abortion removes that choice.
And it is, after all, about belief - because medical fact has set the scientific beginning of life and used it to set the limits upon legalised abortion, and our debate here about the validity of it is based upon our belief as to how correct that definition of life is.
EDIT; I'm (going to try to) not going to reply any more on this issue (foetal life), because i think I've made myself pretty clear over the thread. I understand your views (this being the 'you' in general), and I think I've explained pretty comprehensively why I don't share them, and as such I'm not sure I can do anything but repeat myself... :)
-
I might seem a bit incompetent because I've not the knowledge on many of the background information that might be required for such a debate, but I'm going to try and throw some things out there.
If a parasite is not considered a living organism, then this is not valid, but do parasites not require a proxy source to support their own life processes? In one of the most degrading perspectives, a fetus can be viewed as a parasite that must rely on the mother to develop and function properly. If parasites are alive, aren't fetuses too?
And what I don't get is the whole reliance on what the court views as an individual. Obviously, there had to have been an original basis that had to be concluded upon that prior to the conclusion of that perspective, the basis was simply an opinion, much like what is trying to be proposed as the "other" definitions of when life begins/what being alive is.
Another thing I don't get: Why the hell would a murderer be convicted on two accounts of murder if he were to kill a pregnant women (not to say that I am defending such actions)? If the court concludes that the woman counts as one murder and the unborn fetus counts as another murder, would that not mean that the court considers the fetus to be "alive" at the point and time at which they were killed? Why is this not applicable to abortion? Is it killing or is it not? Why is it that the definition varies selectively? Of course, this can be invalidated if the fetus that counts as a murder qualifies for the definition of what "alive" is.
Personally, I believe that abortion comes down to the ability of a woman to choose and the consequences of those choices. I am a Roman Catholic, but I try to avoid the infusion of any of my religious beliefs into my discussions on moral issues. To be blunt, I believe that this "right" provides ample opportunity for these people to become a whole lot stupider. They whine, complain, picket (which either side does, mind you, whoever talked about pro-life groups going around protesting and shooting doctors, so that assertion is undoubtedly invalid) about the right of a woman to choose, but did they not have the right to choose to engage in sexual relations? They ignore the inherant responsibilities that are coupled with any action and seek to avoid the consequences of such actions. To me, abortion is an escape that serves to train people in the ability to avoid mistakes that should educate by experience. It deprives them of experience, of a sort of education that can only be found in that experience. It serves to weaken them.
EDIT: I love debate. Unfortunately, I will gone this weekend, so I probably won't be able to see how this turns out...Aldo, I must say, I admire your tactics and your etiquette regarding discussion. You are very respectful and respectable.
-
What's with this life thing? I'm pretty sure here in France ( where we have abortion rights, and where we will never lose them because of the politics/religion separation thing, between other reasons, so that UN thing from wich the thread originated, well, lol ), the question is not if it's alive or not ( it IS alive, it has living cells, right, it is alive, then, as much as a plant, a bacteria OR Einstein ), but if it has a personal individuality. They have none, not during embryo stage, that is for sure, and probably not during the first months after their birth. I believe in France abortion is allowed up to the 4th month after conception, because any later might be hazardous to the childbearer. That's the facts.
Btw, about the whole thread: it grows, it evolves... OMG it's ALIIIIIIIVE!!! Question: do admins have the right to kill this thread, wouldn't that be murder? :p
-
Originally posted by AqueousShadow
I might seem a bit incompetent because I've not the knowledge on many of the background information that might be required for such a debate, but I'm going to try and throw some things out there.
If a parasite is not considered a living organism, then this is not valid, but do parasites not require a proxy source to support their own life processes? In one of the most degrading perspectives, a fetus can be viewed as a parasite that must rely on the mother to develop and function properly. If parasites are alive, aren't fetuses too?
Ah, well that's an interesting issue in itself; I've not used the allegory because - as well as being offensive to some people - I'm not sure it's accurate. Offhand, I don't know which parasites are considered alive, athough I know that viruses are parasitical organisms (use the host cells to reproduce, for example), but which are not considered alive or indeed classed as parasites. That may be largely due to their different biological paradigm, though; viruses are vastly different from single celled organisms anyways AFAIK.
My view is that a parasite isn't a completely applicable comparison, because the parasite is capable of sustaining itself through its own biological processes... what i mean is, a parasite will live have the biological ability to support itself (to process food, oxygen, etc), whereas the foetus doesn't have that ability.
By 'proxy' I mean that the mothers organs are still performing the processing (for lack of a better term) performed by a viable babies organs (i.e. one which can survive out the body), whereas a parasite is feeding off or living in the host organism, but not using the hosts organ functions as surrogates for its own.
And what I don't get is the whole reliance on what the court views as an individual. Obviously, there had to have been an original basis that had to be concluded upon that prior to the conclusion of that perspective, the basis was simply an opinion, much like what is trying to be proposed as the "other" definitions of when life begins/what being alive is.
Another thing I don't get: Why the hell would a murderer be convicted on two accounts of murder if he were to kill a pregnant women (not to say that I am defending such actions)? If the court concludes that the woman counts as one murder and the unborn fetus counts as another murder, would that not mean that the court considers the fetus to be "alive" at the point and time at which they were killed? Why is this not applicable to abortion? Is it killing or is it not? Why is it that the definition varies selectively? Of course, this can be invalidated if the fetus that counts as a murder qualifies for the definition of what "alive" is.
Well, that is partially for emotive reasons I think; it is a definite contradiction.
I think it (the law)actually exists in certain cases - i.e. as claimed here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2940372.stm - as an (underhanded?) attack on abortion itself.
Why does the definition vary selectively? I'd guess because no-one is going to lobby to have the charges against murderers of pregnant women shortened. :)
Perhaps legally it should be changed, but I doubt any politician would risk their neck by making that sort of move....
Personally, I believe that abortion comes down to the ability of a woman to choose and the consequences of those choices. I am a Roman Catholic, but I try to avoid the infusion of any of my religious beliefs into my discussions on moral issues. To be blunt, I believe that this "right" provides ample opportunity for these people to become a whole lot stupider. They whine, complain, picket (which either side does, mind you, whoever talked about pro-life groups going around protesting and shooting doctors, so that assertion is undoubtedly invalid) about the right of a woman to choose, but did they not have the right to choose to engage in sexual relations? They ignore the inherant responsibilities that are coupled with any action and seek to avoid the consequences of such actions. To me, abortion is an escape that serves to train people in the ability to avoid mistakes that should educate by experience. It deprives them of experience, of a sort of education that can only be found in that experience. It serves to weaken them.
I agree that abortion can be 'abused' out of self interest in trying to avoid the consequences of sexual activity. But I don't think it's ever (or at most in a small minority) a decision made lightly. I do think it's a decision that should be available, though.
Also, I think it's necessary in many cases to avoid physical or psychological damage to the mother, or in rape cases (which may comprise psychological damage too), and I believe that there should be and is adequate medical oversight in most countries with regards to this.
EDIT: I love debate. Unfortunately, I will gone this weekend, so I probably won't be able to see how this turns out...Aldo, I must say, I admire your tactics and your etiquette regarding discussion. You are very respectful and respectable.
Apologies for the inline red quotes, it's still morning and I can't be bothered doing a big proper inline reply :)
-
I agree that abortion can be 'abused' out of self interest in trying to avoid the consequences of sexual activity.
i agree too
PS: the double-murder-thing is an underhanded swipe at a abortion
-
I agree but the inability to have an abortion can also be used to punish people for the concequences of sexual activity even when an effort was taken to prevent pregnancy.
What a lot of pro-life people seem to miss is that every pro-choicer would love to make it so that abortions weren't ever needed. TRhe problem is that we'd have to eliminate rape, have 100% effective birth control and very good sex ed to make sure people use it.
The first two are impossible right now but the third is possible and yet it's the very people who are against abortion who prevent us from instituting it.
Oh and before you complain Holland has the best sex ed of anywhere in the EU and stangely enough also has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate.
-
I don't want my earlier statement to be misinterpreted, here. Although I was saying that there is legitimacy to the idea that a fetus is human life, this has nothing to do with my stance on abortion. I feel very strongly that abortion should be unconditionally legal. If a woman wants to use abortion as "birth control", as some people are so fond of saying, she's welcome as far as I'm concerned. It's not as if an abortion is a picnic for the woman involved.
As for abstinence, you can argue that it's the better choice if you believe that, but on a large scale, it can never replace the availability of birth control and abortions. Teaching abstinence from sex is like teaching abstinence from war.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What a lot of pro-life people seem to miss is that every pro-choicer would love to make it so that abortions weren't ever needed. TRhe problem is that we'd have to eliminate rape, have 100% effective birth control and very good sex ed to make sure people use it.
BULLSEYE!
-
I've said it time and time again. The government should provide full sex ed to every single child.
If you want to opt out and teach your kids abstinence only you can but if your child ends up pregnant the government garnish your wages instead of making the taxpayer pay for your mistake.
Quite frankly I can't see why this isn't instituted instead of the mish-mash we have now.
-
Because sex is dirty and sinful.
-
Well, technicaly it should be bush, not america as the title, cause im sure 50% or more of america wants to bash him in.
-
:confused:
-
And triple abortion cost and insurance would not pay a penny, that would teach e'm.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
And likewise, those that want abortions because of their mistakes should pay for them out of their own pockets instead of John Q Public via social programs.
Nope. Cause
1) Having to have an abortion proves that the state failed to provide sufficient Sex ed. Therefore it's the state's responsibility to pay. This prevents the state from providing substandard Sex ed in an attempt to keep costs down.
2) The cheaper back street abortions would result in many more deaths and hospitalisations that would probably end up costing the taxpayer more than the original problem.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And triple abortion cost and insurance would not pay a penny, that would teach e'm.
And that's why pro-choicers have a problem with most pro-lifers. You really do seem to think that an unplaned pregnancy should be a punishment for the woman.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And that's why pro-choicers have a problem with most pro-lifers. You really do seem to think that an unplaned pregnancy should be a punishment for the woman.
Of course, if they didn't have sex they wouldn't be pregnant would they. If they are just going out and having sex, I think pregnantcies are a good punishment. Raise the cost of abortions alot, and they can ether stop having sex, or pay the cost. And if she does get pregnant, they should hunt down that guy and make him pay half the cost of the abortion, or ether have that baby.
-
weatherop
*sigh*
please join us in the 21st century
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Of course, if they didn't have sex they wouldn't be pregnant would they. If they are just going out and having sex, I think pregnantcies are a good punishment. Raise the cost of abortions alot, and they can ether stop having sex, or pay the cost. And if she does get pregnant, they should hunt down that guy and make him pay half the cost of the abortion, or ether have that baby.
So married people with 5 kids shouldn't have sex just in case contraception fails and they have yet another child when they are already struggling with the ones they have?
It's not just unmarried people who have abortions you know.
-
And what is the percentage of abortions are married people?And what is the percentage that it fails, and then what is the percentage that have five kids? I can guess that it is pretty low. And also if they have 5 kids, chances are the wouldn't abort that baby anyways if it did come.
-
Of course, if they didn't have sex they wouldn't be pregnant would they. If they are just going out and having sex, I think pregnantcies are a good punishment. Raise the cost of abortions alot, and they can ether stop having sex, or pay the cost.
Punishment for what? Why does anyone need to be punished by society for having sex? There is just something about it that seems to turn a lot of people into moral predators, and I just don't understand it.
-
And if they do can they hunt YOU down and make you pay then?
Here are some stats (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html). No idea how authoratative they are. They were just the first thing that popped out of a google search.
-
No, they can't, cause I didn't cause the pregnacy.:p
-
Yeah but you're suggesting they pay the increased cost because you want to punish unmarried people for having sex and they got caught in the crossfire.
You should pay the bill for that. Or are you suggesting married people who don't want any more kids should just stop having sex?
-
kara...
-
A local newspaper here states that the proposal has been retired in favour of a simpler "the assembly doesn't recognize any new international rights".
Reliability 4/5.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
kara...there's these simple things that married people usually opt for when they have the number of children they want. They are called Vasectomies for the male, and Tubaligations for the female.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking just forgot to include that in my other post. Thanks for adding that.
And about the number of kids, my grandmother had 12, if a family stays together long enough to have 5 kids, I don't think they would abort the sixth one, if they did have a wonderful happen and they did have one. And if it did happen, don't you think that kid should be down here anyways?
-
I don't know why abortions seem to be everyone's quick fix instead of the obvious answer of prevention.
That's not the point. Pro-choice people like me are not proposing the administration of any one solution. We're arguing that anything that is possible should be available so that, A) There are multiple options for the entire spectrum of possible problems and B) People are left alone to make their own moral decisions.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
That's not the point. Pro-choice people like me are not proposing the administration of any one solution. We're arguing that anything that is possible should be available so that, A) There are multiple options for the entire spectrum of possible problems and B) People are left alone to make their own moral decisions.
Exactly. I couldn't put it better myself :nod:
-
weatherop, sapphire
*Sigh*
please join us in the 21st century
let me introduce you two to a revolutionary concept: Sex isn't bad, irresponsible sex is
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
kara...there's these simple things that married people usually opt for when they have the number of children they want. They are called Vasectomies for the male, and Tubaligations for the female.
I don't know why abortions seem to be everyone's quick fix instead of the obvious answer of prevention.
The answer is - they aren't.
I bet you would find that the number of sexual intercourses (ach, crap term) with contraception massively outnumber the abortions for non-psychological/physical reasons.
However, on the subject of the snip, people may not wish permanent infertility (whether they are married or not), even if they do not wish children at the present time.
-
aldo - karajorma -- keep it coming
i don't have the patience for these two (anymore)
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I don't know why abortions seem to be everyone's quick fix instead of the obvious answer of prevention.
ps: they aren't "everyone's quick fix" - you've been fed misinformation if you think that
-
xxxx
-
that post is not even worth a detailed response
*rolleyes*
aldo, karajorma.. if you would be so kind?
-
nice to see you haven't actually bothered to read any of the statistics on the status of women a couple of years after they've had an abortion, Kaz. Depression and a myriad of physiological problems are rampant.
It's not meant to be a fix for anything. It's a fallback last resort if all other methods of saving the mother's life have failed.
-
nice to know that you think things which are irrevelant and are related to societal pressures (meaning: you, weatherop, saphire, etc) actually have anything to do with the legality of something
and it's nice to know that saphire colors her interpretations based upon her poor sampling
-
Sapphire, you may respect women for raising children they didn't want, but I wouldn't want to see that circumstance forced on anyone. That is a lot of potential misery just for having sex with someone. The issue of which abortions are acceptable and which aren't is hardly relevant. Either abortion is legal, or it isn't, and considering that there are people who really do need them, it seems safer to grind your teeth and let the others behave in a way that you may find reprehensible.
-
ford perfect: but we cannot let people live their own lives in their own ways and have their own religious beliefs and leave the government to take a religiously neutral position - it's immoral!!!!
-
too bad her "poor sampling" is an all to common reality
-
just because it's real still doesn't make it a statisical majority - and i gaurantee you she's overstating her surroundings (ie: exaggerating) to try and strengthen her position
-
:p
-
sapphire
A) get all the kids up for adoption into homes first - then you can TRY and make the adoption argument (Still fails for legal reasons)
B) the punishment argument is still asinine no matter how many times you repeat it
-
and....ford....lets go back to the thing about knowing what the possible consequences are for sex. If you have sex...you may end up pregnant. If you agree to sex, you are also agreeing to the possible outcomes.
If the consequences are what make the action bad, then eliminate the threat of the consequences and by logic, the action should cease to be a bad one. Unless there's something else at work here.
-
so, in addition to sactioning the murder of innocents, you're going to alter the brain chemistry of people to make pre/extra marital sex "okay"?
wow...
-
all the women I've known who've had abortions, the few of them, don't have second thoughts about it.
for some women it's not the right choice, those women who think it's murder and if somehow get presured into it think of them selves as haveing killed there child. it's prety simple, if you don't want to don't do it.
-
Liberator, premarital sex is a personal decision, and one that has become widely accepted, at that. Extramarital sex is an issue between the spouses and possibly whoever else is getting in on the action. They are "okay" if the parties involved are "okay" with them. (Usually not the case in extramarital sex, but still not an issue for the state.)
I don't understand whose brain chemistry is being altered. It seems to me that providing these options is a way of cooperating with people's natural brain chemistry by reconciling them with society. Do you really think a species that reaches its sexual peak in its teen years is going to sit around and masturbate until marriage, which is an artificial condition to begin with?
-
lets change the direction of this a little, will someone please explain to me why it would be perfictly alright (well ok, I know you do have a problem with these too but relitively speaking...) to destroy an unfertalised egg and swaths of sperm as many contraceptives do, but yet if you kill an egg the instant after fertaliseation it's murdering a innocent human soul?
-
I have no problem with "morning after pills" or what have you, then you are only destroying a mass of cells. Waiting months before doing something is totally wrong however.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I have no problem with "morning after pills" or what have you, then you are only destroying a mass of cells. Waiting months before doing something is totally wrong however.
well, thats a step in the right direction. ok so when exactly is it "murder", I agree that if a pregnancy is to be terminated it should be done so at the earliest posable time. but were argueing here, so I won't dwell on what we agree about. is it implantation in the uterine wall? the formation of a spinal colum? a brain? a heart? what is the point, and then I'll disect that point further until we get at what it is exactly that you use to define a human soul.
{hey, look at my post count :ha:}
-
actually shadowwolf i'll merely be ignoring you - because she was overstating her case by attempting to claim that her personal expirience with said individuals makes that the "norm"
-
it probly is the norm for her, you tend to hang around people who are like you, if she somehow got talked into haveing an abortion I have a feeling she whould regret it.
doesn't mean she was exadurateing, intentionaly.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well, thats a step in the right direction. ok so when exactly is it "murder", I agree that if a pregnancy is to be terminated it should be done so at the earliest posable time. but were argueing here, so I won't dwell on what we agree about. is it implantation in the uterine wall? the formation of a spinal colum? a brain? a heart? what is the point, and then I'll disect that point further until we get at what it is exactly that you use to define a human soul.
Haven't we been down this road before...
I am not qualified to say when it is no longer okay to remove the child, no human is.
But applying cold logic:
The point at which the baby could survive on it's own(not including any external medical assistence) free from the mother's superior systems, would seem to be a logical place.
But such a position may have to change in the future.
-
if you can't define when the point of mortality occurse then it is entierly a matter of personal oppionion and thus can not be legilated
personaly I am of the judgement that desisions of this personal nature should not be legislated, it is not the government's place to come in and dictate how what your oppionions are to be.
-
I agree...in principle.
But this is similar(similar not identical Kaz) to the racial purges that have accompanied the rise of dictators. You have to remove the humanity of those you want to kill en masse, or else you lose all legitimacy and the people stop obeying.
The primaary difference is that the ones being exterminated a) have no voice, b)have no say in their being here, and c) the ones who should be their advocates are the ones killing them. That just seems screwy to me.
BTW, I'm still waiting for some ambitious law student or lawyer to come along and explain to me how a single decision by a single jusdge(who is perhaps long dead) can have the apparent weight of law when it comes to adjudicating a separate, completely different case. I've never had it explained to me why precedent exists in a court enviroment, it never really serves to do anything except sucker-punch common sense(which it turns out isn't so common).
-
BTW, I'm still waiting for some ambitious law student or lawyer to come along and explain to me how a single decision by a single jusdge(who is perhaps long dead) can have the apparent weight of law when it comes to adjudicating a separate, completely different case. I've never had it explained to me why precedent exists in a court enviroment, it never really serves to do anything except sucker-punch common sense(which it turns out isn't so common).
If judges were to continually reverse themselves, then the law would have no weight.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Its just that far too many abortions are performed for cases that do not have real reason.
You're 100% corect. As I stated before the pro-choicers would love to bring the abortion figures down if only because it is an invasive proceedure and does have the possibility of a long term psychological effect.
But remember that it's your side responsible for preventing the children being taught proper sex ed so that they didn't need to have an abortion.
In the majority of the cases you mention contraception would have prevented the need for abortion.
So the real reason that there are such a high number of abortons is cause of the pro-lifers and other campaigners against good sex ed in school. Don't lay the blame for this one anywhere else.
-
overstating her case, that sounds dangerously close to being called a liar. If you want to ignore something, ignore this....your opinion is not fact. You seem to believe that your opinion is the only correct way to think. People have different opinions, and it doesn't make them any less of a person, or any less intelligent, or any less real to have an opinion that differs from yours. An opinion isn't right or wrong, only someone with an ego so large that it exerts force on celestial bodies would think that people who do not share the opinion, are beneath them.
oh screw it.....
only someone who is believes themselves to be inferior would feel the need to constantly berate others for the beliefs that they hold. That is my opinion, but it does beg another question....why do you constantly berate people for the beliefs that they have?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
If judges were to continually reverse themselves, then the law would have no weight.
Reversing themselves? I'm expecting them to adjudicate based on Law, not a decision by one man in a particular set of circumstances.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Haven't we been down this road before...
I am not qualified to say when it is no longer okay to remove the child, no human is.
But applying cold logic:
The point at which the baby could survive on it's own(not including any external medical assistence) free from the mother's superior systems, would seem to be a logical place.
But such a position may have to change in the future.
And that's the current legal position for legalised abortion.
-
Then why are 7 & 8 month babies being partially delivered and then haveing a hole drilled into their heads and their brains sucked out?
-
Why does this get going when I go to bed?:D
I still say triple the cost of abortion, but the very sad fact is it won't stop abortion, not by a long shot. All we would end up with is a whole pile of rich doctors.
Hey, Lib do you know what state leads the whole USA in STDs and probley abortions?
-
7 month babies aborted?
Where did you read such an enormous BS?
The only place where it may happen is china, but no western country has such a practice.
-
Wasn't that banned a few years ago by Bush, but the sad fact is I know it still goes on, like your never gonna stop them inporting drugs, it just will never stop just get worse.:(
-
WeatherOp, i can 100% guarantee this is patented BS.
If you do not believe me take a professional book about abortion techniques and you'll see this is pure fantasy.
-
No, I don't think so, I've herd of partial birth abortions and I've herd thats what they used they would shove a spike like thing in the back of the head and suck out the brains and cut the rest up for experenments.
-
WeatherOp, what you hear or what someone says is not constitute a valid proof.
I've heard that pro life extremists practices infubulation but i don't think i'd buy such a thing until i'll see some proof, same should be for you.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So the real reason that there are such a high number of abortons is cause of the pro-lifers and other campaigners against good sex ed in school. Don't lay the blame for this one anywhere else.
=======================================
The first evaluation of programs used throughout the state has found that students in almost all high school grades were more sexually active after abstinence education
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/01/another_study_o.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531
=======================================
First, it is important to note the threats that abstinence-only-until-marriage education poses to young people in general. Research has shown that sex education that promotes the delay of first intercourse but simultaneously teaches safer sex practices is more effective than abstinence-only education. A World Health Organization review of 35 sex education programs around the world documented the relative ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education in stemming the spread of sexually transmitted infections.12 A report released by U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher in early 2001 also questioned the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Satcher noted that there has been little research to demonstrate the effectiveness of this particular type of instruction.13 Moreover, initial indicators are that the Act's abstinence-only provisions have had a chilling effect on the discussion of homosexuality and on sex education efforts aimed at stopping the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and teen pregnancy.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/transitions/transitions1404_6.htm
=======================================
"Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse."1 - Council of Scientific Affairs. Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. [Action of the AMA House of Delegates 1999 Interim Meeting, SCA Report 7-I-99.] Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1999.
Cited http://www.themediaproject.com/facts/sexeducation/mythfact.htm (along with a lot of other good things on that page)
=======================================
This growing body of research highlights a troubling disconnect: While politicians promote abstinence-only education, teachers, parents and students want young people to receive far more comprehensive information about how to avoid unintended pregnancy and STDs, and about how to become sexually healthy adults.
(http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/ib_2001/chart2c.gif)
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_2-01.html;)
=======================================
During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females
....
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sex education programs that encourage abstinence while also providing adolescents with information on how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually “may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.”
.....
Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.47 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.48
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355
=======================================
AND MORE
http://ari.ucsf.edu/pdf/abstinence.pdf
However, they're not taught how to prevent these risks by engaging in safe sex. As a result, the roughly one-half of teens who have sex before the age of 19 may be unprepared to protect themselves against the dangers they're warned about. - http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/teach_our_kids_sex_reality.htm
=======================================
I could go on and on with more and more source citations
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Then why are 7 & 8 month babies being partially delivered and then haveing a hole drilled into their heads and their brains sucked out?
because you were lied to - it this doesn't happen
this is a bull**** description of a Intact Dialation and Extraction - which some moron termed "partial birth abortion"
this proceedure only takes place WHEN THE BABY IS ALREADY DEAD IN THE WOMB (from natural causes 90% of the time, and other trauma inflicted on the mother/developing featus the other 10% of the time)
if they don't perform the proceedure to remove the already dead featus the mother dies too
------------------
Wikipedia-ations
Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical technique which can be used for partial-birth abortion or the removal of a dead fetus after a late-term miscarriage, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
the only time that "brain sucking out thing" happens is A) the featus is already dead and B) it was misformed so that this has to be done so that it can pass through the cervix
needless to say WOMEN DO NOT UNDERGO THIS PROCEDURE LIGHTLY AND NO DOCTOR ADMINISTERS IT LIGHTLY
-
Of course......its just easier to call me a liar.
-
It's easier not to give a rats arse and accept that some nasty things have to happen for us to lead our lives the way we want them.
-
Sapphire: it's not the first time laws have been made about bull**** that doesn't actually exist
-
:p
-
It's a helluva ride I can tell you that.
-
Wow, this threads grown. Do people actually expect to change each other's minds? This all boils down to a philsophical battle. Why don't people take this energy and apply it in the real world, where it can actually make a difference (in a non-violent way). Either being involved in some communal activity such as a pro-life or pro-death rally.
-
and sapphire conviently ignores the huge source citation post
-
NB: From my understanding, partial birth abortion is only (or should only legally be) performed when the mothers life is in danger or the baby is severly or fatally disabled. From what I've read the baby is - or rather can be - alive at the point of abortion, although I somehow doubt the term 'sucked out brains' is medically accurate rather than being chosen for emotive value (as is the term 'partial birth abortion'; the medical term is "Intact Dilation and Extraction", which can also refer IIRC to the removal of a dead foetus..
FYI Clinton veto-ed the 2 partial-birth bills as they made no provision for the mothers health. Now, I'll admit not to being a doctor, but surely if the child cannot be delivered early and survive, and carrying the child will kill the mother and the child as a consequence, then it should ethical to perform the procedure.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Now I've heard it all. I guess partial birth abortion is a myth, WeatherOp, don'cha know? So much a myth that Clinton had to veto a bill which would have prevented it earlier. So much a myth that Pres. Bush finally signed it into law.
he didn't say it didn't exsist, he said it was extreemly rare and that your interpetation of the overwelmingly common implementation of it was inacurate.
in your experience how many women have you met who had this procedure? I haven't met any. and it's understandable it's a far more sereous procedure than a normal abortion, hell a normal abortion is little more than a suped up douche in comparison, and not many people choose to go into major surgery just for the hell of it. I'm not going to bother posting statistics because you can just as easily find something that suports your side and then we'll get into an unwinable argument about who's stats are bull****, so I'm going to just ask you to rely on what you know from personal experience, I'm so confedent in the rareity of this that do not even consiter the posability that you know someone who had it done unless you actively sought someone out. it's extreemly rare, it's a major surgical procedure, it's only done when it _must_ be done. if you've heard rumors to the contrary, that's exactly what they are, rumors. there exsist people known as pollititions, these people's lively hoods depend on convenceing large numbers of people that there is a problem and that they are the only people who know how to fix it, even if this problem does not truely exsist.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
because you were lied to - it this doesn't happen
this is a bull**** description of a Intact Dialation and Extraction - which some moron termed "partial birth abortion"
this proceedure only takes place WHEN THE BABY IS ALREADY DEAD IN THE WOMB (from natural causes 90% of the time, and other trauma inflicted on the mother/developing featus the other 10% of the time)
if they don't perform the proceedure to remove the already dead featus the mother dies too
------------------
Wikipedia-ations
Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical technique which can be used for partial-birth abortion or the removal of a dead fetus after a late-term miscarriage, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
the only time that "brain sucking out thing" happens is A) the featus is already dead and B) it was misformed so that this has to be done so that it can pass through the cervix
needless to say WOMEN DO NOT UNDERGO THIS PROCEDURE LIGHTLY AND NO DOCTOR ADMINISTERS IT LIGHTLY
NB: Kaz, FYI the exact meaning of 'Partial Birth Abortion' in the wikipedia is somewhat inconsistent; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion defines it as such
The terms "dilation and extraction" (D&X), "intact dilation and extraction" (IDX or "intact D&X"), "intact dilation and evacuation" (IDE), "intrauterine cranial decompression," "brain suction abortion" and "partial birth feticide" are sometimes used interchangeably with "partial-birth abortion." However, the terms "partial-birth abortion," "brain suction abortion" and "partial birth feticide" only cover procedures which kill a baby; the other terms all cover a range of procedures which include not only partial-birth abortion, but also the removal of a dead fetus following natural miscarriage.
(just in case it's relevant).
I think maybe the UK status part of the (IDX) Wikipedia entry is informative, though;
"Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist's (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
-
No - i'm dimissing your attitude that your personal expirience proves the rule
it does not
-
:o
-
just because abortion has been abused still doesn't justify outlawing it
a cooking knife can be abused - used to kill someone
a computer can be abused - used to break into other peoples data
a car can be abused
a video camera can be abused
need i go on?
nobody said that it wasn't occasionally abused - but something haven't been abused DOESN'T mean it should be (or can be) outlawed
-
:lol:
-
depends on how you're using the term gun control
in favor of: basic licensing, background checks, etc
against: tracking each and every single gun, etc
-
uhhhh..
-
Isn't birth control (and contraception) actively encouraging responsibility and recognition of the consequences of sex? I certainly feel it does a better job of informing people of the risks and what they are, than simply saying 'don't do it'.
-
now we appear to be getting somewhere :D
/timewarp
-
for the record I am opposed to public funding of just about everything (exept grade schools... and roads)
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
What I am against is having abortions used as a commonplace thing, and the free flow of public money to finance abortions used for birth control or to elliminate the need for personal responsibility in having sex. I also believe that the demand for abortions would decrease if people are educated to own personal responsibility for their choices.
As I've said several times. Allow better teaching of Sex ed. That's where the problem lies. You want kids to realise the responsibilties involved in having sex then you have to teach them.
You can't do that by simply barking "Don't have sex" at them. They'll try it anyway and then you'll be in the situation you are now.
Do you think it's a co-incidence that the western country with the highest reliance on abstincence only sex ed is also the western country with the highest level of teen pregnancies and abortions?
-
and the police force
and the court
etc
ps: bobboau "promote the general welfare"
-
when I mentioned roads I was implying public services, that would include police, fire departments, military, emergincy medical service, city pluming/sewers, electrical/communication transmission. stuff that you are alowed to use so long as you pay your taxes.
and if you don't use a service I don't think you should have to pay for it, I don't like the big pool of money for the government that exsists now, taxes should be itemised more than they are now, and you only have to pay for what you use (like in order to get a drivers licence you have to pay an anual universal fee, that fee goes into maintaining the roads).
but this is going off course, were argueing about abortion, but maybe this will help to prove that most pro-choice people are not the steriotypical quasi-comunist that some people seem to think they are
-
bobboau: there are many reasons why your system is unworkable - we'll go into them some other time tho
-
my point in bringing that up was that Sapphire seems to have some monolithic steriotypical view of us "liberals", I was trying to show her that reality is more complicated than that.
-
gotcha
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Reversing themselves? I'm expecting them to adjudicate based on Law, not a decision by one man in a particular set of circumstances.
Define 'Freedom of Speech'.
Going strictly by those words, that DOESN'T include any sort of writing (Unless you are a member of the press) or communication beyond speech. But that would also include types of speech that would endanger others' lives.
Jason's hated adversary, John, is doing some work on his house in a precarious position on his ladder. It's a warm summer day, half a dozen people are out as well. Jason sneaks up behind John and suddenly screams "JOHN!", causing John to jerk and fall off the ladder, and breaks his neck.
So it goes to court. Jason's feud with John is well-known, there's a half-dozen witnesses to the murder. But Jason has freedom of speech, so he can't be prosecuted, even though the intent and purpose of his speech was obviously to kill John. In order to get that changed, the Constitution would have to be ammended (sp?) to add "except" and some exceptions to the Freedom of Speech clause. Today, we'd be talking about amendments in the 200s, at least, and at that point the Constitution would have lost a lot of its integrity and, well, sanctity.
But of course, in the meantime, anything you can do with nothing bu speech is legal. And the government can arrest you if you write something it doesn't like in an e-mail, or in your blog, or wherever.
And of course, does the 'Freedom of speech' by itself apply to merely the Federal government, or to individuals and businesses as well? This is where 'interpreting the law' comes in, and why there is such a difference between constructionist and activist judges. A constructionist judge would think along the lines, "Hmm, what were they thinking of when they wrote this law?" An activist judge would think along the lines of, "Hmm, how should this apply today?"
Honestly, today, the President has far more power than the courts. If you are so scared of "a decision by one man in a particular set of circumstances", well, individual judges shouldn't be your biggest concern. If an interpretation of a law is controversial enough, it'll end up in the Supreme Court, where the decision of nine people, not one, will decide what the law means.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I didn't label anyone "liberals" or anything else... Did you?
you didn't say it but I was getting that impression.
-
WMC: good analysis but "activist judge" is a bad term - and the people you were refering to by this would think "what were they thinking when they wrote this? and how does it apply today?"
strict constructionists follow the exact letter of the law (often trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
-
omfg sapphire doesn't believe abstinance only has been being taught
im sorry... she's just soo... uninformed!
i don't have the patience for her anymore... OMFG!
-
Kazan
-
Originally posted by Kazan
omfg sapphire doesn't believe abstinance only has been being taught
im sorry... she's just soo... uninformed!
i don't have the patience for her anymore... OMFG!
I've missed you. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
WMC: good analysis but "activist judge" is a bad term - and the people you were refering to by this would think "what were they thinking when they wrote this? and how does it apply today?"
strict constructionists follow the exact letter of the law (often trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law)
Well, my personal opinion is that 'constructionist judges' are ones that interpret the law as it was meant to apply, to the best of their capacity.
'Activist judges', on the other hand, (I don't have a better term, and this one is pretty common) interpret the law based more on how it should be interpreted today, again to the best of their capacity.
Whether someone who argues the text of a law depends on the situation. It could be either activist or constructionist, actually. If a judge interpreted the 'freedom of speech' as I did below, I would be VERY suspicious as it obviously was meant to apply more to limiting the government's powers to oppress the people than to enable people to murder one another without consequence.
-
"Could you please show me some statistics and cite some sources to back up this part of your statement? "
well I promise you we have the highest reliance on it, because every other Western nation on the planet thinks of it as a joke. so the only question is what are the rates of teen pregency and abortion in the US and Europe.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
I believe abstinance only hasn't been the majority choice in the school systems in the US. There are no schools in our area which currently do this. Abstinance may be presented as an alternative, but other methods are freely presented and described in detail along with the actual act of sex and bodily functions during.
AFAIK, the federally funded programs are allowed to go no further than presenting a variety of birth control options and the failure rates for each one. But abstinence is supposed to be stressed.
Sort of like "The pill works 98% of the time, condoms work 73% of the time, the only safe way is abstinence. Abstinence also reduces the chance of STDs to nothing...". I'm just pulling those statistics out of my ass, but that's what I get the impression that federally funded sex ed is supposed to teach.
Edit: I haven't seen the set of regulations/conditions that govern it. I suspect that most of the 'abstinence only' in sex ed would come from so-called bible belt communities, where the parents exert enough influence on the school to convince it, or the school itself decides, that anything beyond abstinence outside of marriage is immoral and teenagers should not be provided alternatives lest they feel free to 'experiment'.
-
the founding fathers roll over in their graves every time someone uses the term "activist judges"
you have
strict constructionists (read: literalists)
and non-strict constructionists
the founding fathers roll over in their graves at the opinions of the strict constitrutionists too
if you read the 'supporting documentation' of the things the founding fathers wrote about what they were trying to do with the constitution it is very obvious that strict-constructionism is utterly and totally NOT what they intended
then there is always the fact that strict-csontructionism is consistently used to justify bigotry and religious oppression
-
then there is always the fact that strict-csontructionism is consistently used to justify bigotry and religious oppression
I'd define that as being an 'activist judge'. Actually, no, I wouldn't. I'd define that as being a 'bad judge', if a judge were ignoring the spirit of a law to push some agenda around contrary to what the law(s) were meant to mean.
The problem with non-strict constructionism is really that one person's interpretation of events can be different than another person's. If a judge chooses taking the words of the law literally because the true spirit of it or how the spirit of the law applies in the current situation is vague, I don't see anything wrong with that. If a bill barely passes in Congress, interpreting the law to mean something that would have caused it to have not been passed goes against how the legal system is supposed to work.
I get the impression that you think strict constructionism is inherently bad, which I disagree with - I think the real problem is, like I said, individual judges who use it as a way to advance some other agenda.
-
strict constructionism is inherently _WRONG_ - as in that it's INCORRECT
it's NOT how the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be interpreted -- that is supported by their statements in other writtings
THEN add to that the fact that strict constructionism is the champion of the totalitarian theocrats agenda
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Could you please show me some statistics and cite some sources to back up this part of your statement?
I believe abstinance only hasn't been the majority choice in the school systems in the US. There are no schools in our area which currently do this. Abstinance may be presented as an alternative, but other methods are freely presented and described in detail along with the actual act of sex and bodily functions during.
I didn't say that it was a majority choice. Just that you have more of them than anywhere else.
That said.
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html)
The US teen pregnancy rate is in fact double that of any other western country. Sadly the UK is next. (I could find lots of places that gave me that statistic and lots of places that gave me tonnes of statistics but I found nothing in between (i.e a site with the statistics in an easy to read manner).
Might be worth taking a look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3773659.stm) though. Notice that although the UK has a higher rate of teen sex it has a lower rate of teen pregnancy.
-
...But that's an inherently non-strict constructionist view, because the other writings aren't part of the Constitution. They weren't agreed upon by the delegates to become part of the highest law of the land. If it was generally regarded at the time of the writing that the 'murder' law applied to unborn babies as well as adults, would you say that makes abortion illegal, punishable by the death penalty? (Which is actually pretty likely considering the time period)
-
WMC: those other documents were written by the same men who wrote the constitution - clarifying their intentions in the constitution - there weren't any "strict constructionsists" among the founding fathers
-
Right, but they aren't legal documents. Politics is the art of compromise; if two people are completely opposed to one another, the best you can hope for is a compromise. Outside documents shouldn't have the force of law, or else it ends up being a free-for-all where you can argue that senators or congressmen who personally dissented with a bill, but voted for it, can be used by a judge who doesn't like the law to overturn the law. And that effectively gives judges veto power, and the whole separation of powers thing blows up.
-
"Right, but that aren't legal documents" -- that doesn't change the fact that they are important information to know when deciding how the constitution is suppose to apply
but they don't have force of law
a true strict constructionist wouldn't have the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review at all - but the neglect that and other 'inconveniences' making their position inconsistent
-
True. :nod: And IMHO that's something that's worked out pretty well. For whatever reason the SC cases I've heard about have tended to be on the side of what I'd consider 'right'. Perhaps because the SC doesn't have direct or indirect control over the armed forces/police and so have to be attentive to the opinion of the people, or else have their rulings be overruled by new laws from Congress.
-
I would like someone to explain to me how we can have a conditional policy with regards to abortions. How are we going to decide who qualifies for abortions and who doesn't? Because what I see there is an inevitable legal disaster.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I would like someone to explain to me how we can have a conditional policy with regards to abortions. How are we going to decide who qualifies for abortions and who doesn't? Because what I see there is an inevitable legal disaster.
Based upon the judgement of doctors and psychologists, I guess; although that could leave it dependent upon the opinions of said doctors and psychologists on the issue..... I don't really see a fair conditional system being possible myself, either.
-
after reading the rest of this thread all i have to say is that it's good to have Kazan back, now no one needs to form an opinion, we can just use his and know that it is right.
yup, the ego has attracted another natural satellite. Good thing that fusion can't take place in an ego or we would be in a binary system.
Don't bother, you've been placed on ignore.
-
wow.. that was a realllly constructive post