|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 125 of 404:
| 
Oct 22 17:49 UTC 1998 |
Re: Rane's #121
I don't know how you'd go about proving or disproving it, and I have no
desire to scout out an answer. But I certainly wouldn't assume the
comment "...the likelihood that white persons in the USA taken at
random will have more money on their person than a black person taken
at random" is true.
Actually, me gut feeling is this would not be true.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 404:
|
Oct 22 18:49 UTC 1998 |
Good question for the next census.... :)
|
md
|
|
response 127 of 404:
|
Oct 22 20:50 UTC 1998 |
My "stereotype" remark in #120 was a joke. You might look that
word up in the dictionary if it's unfamiliar to you.
On the other hand, Mary makes an interesting point. If by "money"
you mean "cash," as I assume you do, then it may be true that white
folk don't carry much of that stuff on their persons anymore. The
contents of my pockets would be horribly disappointing to a robber.
|
faile
|
|
response 128 of 404:
|
Oct 22 21:04 UTC 1998 |
(Jon... if I can find a copy of the paper from that day sure... just let me
know how to get it to you... just e-mail me. That goes for anyone else who
would be interested in a copy of that cartoon... the art isn't great, but I
like the statement.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 129 of 404:
|
Oct 22 22:40 UTC 1998 |
Last I checked, I had $42 cash or so in my pocket. A nice enough haul for a
mugging, I suppose.
|
kenton
|
|
response 130 of 404:
|
Oct 23 01:56 UTC 1998 |
Although I don't know what my church stance is on abortion or homosexuality,
I feel both are wrong.
I never thought about abortions, till my wife came home from the doctor and
sobbingly told me the doctor wanted to abort my daughter (due to high blood
pressure problems). My wife's life was in danger by keeping the baby. Yet
she did, and the choice was all her's. That started me thinking about
abortion and the right or wrong of it.
If you manually split a human egg after it reaches 2 cells, you get twins, or
if the size reaches 4 cells, and they are separated, you get quadruplets.
After the cells reach eight in number, any split causes death to all cells.
God places a soul after the original egg has multiplied to 8 cells (in my
opinion). But what about frozen eggs and fetuses. Would God place a soul in a
state of limbo?
My children were both born by c-section. By the logic that they are citizens
when born, a fetus would also be a citizen when forcefully extracted from it's
mother. Where is the ACLU then. Why are not such fetuses given medical care
to save their lives. Although many fetuses are torn to shreds inside and so
are born dead (so to speak), many are also removed alive and very much
recognizable as humans. Doctors don't always get the date of conception
right.
Want to split some hairs? Then kill them before you pull them out. That way
they wouldn't be citizens.
If it is OK to kill unborn children for any or all reasons, then it is OK
to kill you for the same. Hitler thought so.
|
katie
|
|
response 131 of 404:
|
Oct 23 02:52 UTC 1998 |
I`m interested to know why you believe God "places a soul when the egg
reaches 8 cells".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 132 of 404:
|
Oct 23 03:23 UTC 1998 |
Re #127: I like to take joking responses semi-seriously to read the
funny responses I get.
Re #130: you do make difficulties where there is no need for them. The
fundamental question is the control of a woman over her body and its
contents. It has been decided that a woman has the right to terminate
the life of a fetus younger than a certain age - period. All the quibbling
over death before or after extraction, immaterial issues like the mystical
"soul", and so forth, are totally irrelevant.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 133 of 404:
|
Oct 23 05:37 UTC 1998 |
re #132: Is there anything else that many of the rest of us care deeply
about but which is not important to you that you would like to unilaterally
declare "irrelevant" while you're at it? I mean why stop there? Isn't
*everything* Rane Curl doesn't consider important irrelevant?
I hardly agree with #130 but #132 strikes me as just as boneheaded and
dogmatic. It is no more than argument by assertion. Before Roe vs. Wade,
when abortions were illegal or severely restricted in many jurisdictions,
would you have argued just as strongly that the question of abortion had
been settled -- period?
In our democracy no issue can be considered permanently settled when
such a strong division exists between two large opposing camps. And no
matter how much hand-waving you do, the fact that a very great number
of people are very deeply concerned with this particular issue makes
it pretty hard to justify your claim that it's "irrelevant."
|
brighn
|
|
response 134 of 404:
|
Oct 23 06:51 UTC 1998 |
#133> I don't believe that the Supreme Court had made a decision on abortion
prior to Roe v Wade. Perhaps I'm wrong. While I agree that decisions are never
and should never be set entirely in stone, the Supreme Court has been rather
supportive of the *general* legalization of abortion, while being supportive
of certain restrictions.
At any rate, I was of the opinion that Rane was saying that the nature and
presence of the soul was irrelevant to the legal issue of abortion. I agree.
The soul is a religious and spiritual construct, and is generally irrelevant
to legal issues.
It is legal to remove somebody from life support, if the family deems it
appropriate (particualrly the custodial parents). In almost all cases of
abortion (if not *all* cases of legal abortion), the fetus would die without
the life support of the womb. The custodial parent (i.e., the mother who's
carrying it) should have the legal right to remove that life support.
There. A legal justification of abortion that doesn't rely on "citizenship"
or even on "the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn." Remove
the fetus from the womb; if it can live on its own, without life support, it's
welcome to continue to live.
This line of reasoning is generally called the "viability" argument, and is
used to defend first and early second trimester abortions, while supporting
a ban on late second (the extreme point at which fetuses are viable in
incubators) and third trimester abortions.
|
senna
|
|
response 135 of 404:
|
Oct 23 09:44 UTC 1998 |
Rane, that's partially correct. The fundamental question for pro-choicers
is whether or not a woman should have control over her body and its contents.
It's quite an understandable viewpoint. Most people wouldn't want something
growing in them that they're simply told they can do nothing about. The
fundamental question for Pro-lifers, however, is whether or not a human life
should be preserved.
Unfortunately, neither side is willing to admit the other side has any valid
arguments, so they continue to bicker like small children :)
|
md
|
|
response 136 of 404:
|
Oct 23 10:38 UTC 1998 |
What makes me uncomfortable is that there's no absolute point
along the continuum of fetal growth where the fetus becomes
"human." No one advocates infanticide. No one (that I know of)
advocates the right to abortion at eight months, because in
most cases that would indeed amount to infanticide. So we
slide the cutoff back along the continuum until the law finally
says, "Okay, before *this* point it's okay to abort." Why?
Because the Supreme Court says so? Because all us "reasonable"
people think it sounds, oh, about right? Not very convincing,
with all respect to "reasonable" people (most of whom believed,
until about 20 years ago, that homosexuality was a form of mental
illness).
There, I've admitted that the other side has a valid argument.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 137 of 404:
|
Oct 23 14:32 UTC 1998 |
I'm delighted kenton's wife decided not to have an abortion. I'm even more
delighted that his wife involved him in the decision. And I'm glad the two
of them were able to weigh the pertinant medical and personal information and
come to a conclusion that was different from what the doctor recommended.
I'm also glad that if I were in that situation I'd be able to come to a
conclusion based on my personal medical and family situation. That's what
choice is about.
Most right-to-life legislation has said that neither she nor I would have any
decision to make. The legislature would have made it for us.
I would not like the legislature to say "in this instance, given the best
medical information, you _must_ have an abortion". Nor would I want
legislation saying "in this instance, given the best medical information, you
_must_not_ have an abortion". Medical decisions should be left to the
individual, in consultation with whomever they choose.
|
brighn
|
|
response 138 of 404:
|
Oct 23 15:43 UTC 1998 |
senna, there's a difference between saying, "You have reasoned and valid
points, some of which I even agree with" and "You're right."
I have seen and read proponents, even on the extremes of either side, admit
that the other side was reasoned and valid points. On the pro-choice side,
most advocates admit that the general idea of abortion is distasteful or at
least unfortunate. Their feeling is that the alternative -- prohibiting
abortions -- is more distasteful and unfortuante. Likewise, on the pro-life
side, advocates admit that it's unfortuante that a woman should bring to term
an unwanted child; their feeling is that the option -- abortion -- is more
unfortunate.
In short, nowhere do I hear (for any of MD's beloved "reasonable" people)
anyway saying, "Killing fetuses is great fun!" or "Giving birth to unwanted
children is the ideal to which we should all strive!"
So please get off the Superiority "I'm Not TAking a Side so I can Freely
Insult Those Who have" Fence. I've been up there myself, from time to time.
It doesn't get me anywhere, and it just annoys everyone else.
|
scg
|
|
response 139 of 404:
|
Oct 23 17:22 UTC 1998 |
While brighn in response 134 is trying to make a point I agree with, I don't
think the logic there works. In situations where it's considered ok to remove
life support, generally it's because the person is considered to have no
chance for a meaningful recovery. On the other hand, in the case of healthy
foetuses, being in the womb and depending on the mother for life support is
part of the normal life cycle, which allowed to continue will often result
in a healthy baby being born, who can then grow into a healthy adult. The
abortion question is really about balancing the rights of the potential mother
to make decisions about whether to have a kid, versus the right of this part
of her body that will eventually become a baby to be born.
Clearly, having a heartbeat, or having eight individual cells, or whatever,
isn't sufficient to define human life. In that case, we would also have to
ban mousetraps and the like, since mice also fit that criteria, and are
considerably more independant than a human foetus, or even a human baby, is.
The law then has to decide at what point the foetus deserves protection as
a human, and while the end of the first trimester is fairly arbitrary, it's
probably about as good as anything else.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 140 of 404:
|
Oct 23 18:14 UTC 1998 |
Re #136: Actually, one scientist has proposed "brain life" as the
"absolute point" to which you refer.
With regard to the general "message" that pro-lifers are trying to send, I
was interested to read that in the latest budget battle in Congress,
"pro-lifers" (the term used in the paper) were instrumental in removing
contraceptive coverage from medical insurance for federal employees. This
tells me that there may be another hidden agenda for at least some
pro-lifers. Either they are anti-sex, or they want to eliminate any human
control over the consequences of sexual activity, or they want to bring as
many babies into the world as possible, regardless of whether or not they
are wanted.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 404:
|
Oct 23 19:07 UTC 1998 |
Re #133: mcnally certainly enjoys the privilege of making all the boneheaded
and dogmatic assertions that he presents to us. He should allow equal freedom
for others to do the same without getting into a snit about it.
Re #136: one might say, "that's life". Almost all decisions are chosen
out of continua. Given that humans have been confronted with this since
they evolved one would think there would be more comfort dealing with
it. One considers as many of the issues involved as one can, and then one
makes a *decision*. When that decision creates a rule or law, it is then
subject to revision or reversal. Applied to abortion, a "great compromise"
was created by Roe vs Wade. I don't support infanticide, but I see nothing
wrong at all with terminating a newly fertilized ovum. In fact, the
overwhelming female human conscensus is that *they* have that right. We
will always have to live with a compromise (we all know how well the
earlier 'total illegality' of abortion was - abortion was about as common
as it is now, but with much worse consequences for human health.)
|
faile
|
|
response 142 of 404:
|
Oct 23 22:39 UTC 1998 |
Re 140: The catholic chruch's argument is that every male sperm represents
a potental human life... and none should be wasted for any other silliness.
(Okay, I'm tired, my languge has gotten a little silly... please don't think
I'm trivializing the issue.... I'm just a tad loopy at teh moment.) Kind of
like the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred." But the point being is
that according to this dogma, humans aren't meant to have sex for teh
enjoyment of it, we're supposed to do it to procreate. The fact that it's
kind of fun is simply temptation to do it more often. So any form of birth
control is out of the question.
Keep in mind that I say that it is the chruch's belief-- if you asked the Pope
"how does the chruch feel about birth control?" that's kind of how he'd
respond. Actual catholics run the spectrum. I have a very conservitave pair
of friends who are trying the rhythm thing (they just got married), and the
rest of us have bets as to when in the next year she'll be pregnant. I have
another very devout friend who is getting married in the spring and plans on
using birth control until she's at least 30. *shrug*
but I babble.
|
senna
|
|
response 143 of 404:
|
Oct 23 22:42 UTC 1998 |
Brighn, what fence are you referring to? My neutrality in this argument
involves the fact that I simply do not list my opinion on the issue. When
do I insult the sides? I dont' recall doing so. I insult both sides in equal
amounts on occasion, such as when I observe that both are extremely stupid.
This isn't hard to do. Both sides *are* extremely stupid. Which is why I
don't say anything about my opinion. If I'm pro-choice, then a fair number
of pro-lifers will automatically think of me as a brutal holocaustic murderer.
If I'm pro-life, some people will consider me to be a sexist oppressive pig.
I have large numbers of friends on both sides of the issue, and I refuse to
get involved in the nitty-gritty of the argument. I mean, if you vigorously
insult my person now, imagine how much I'd get insulted (forget issue
disagreement) if I actually took a side.
|
senna
|
|
response 144 of 404:
|
Oct 23 22:44 UTC 1998 |
142 slipped in... my friend, who is catholic, gave a rundown of the catholic's
viewpoint on it... I think the official catholic viewpoint is that sex should
be for love, pleasure, and procreation. They don't have any illusions about
it not being something pleasurable. Protestant doctrines are much loser.
But, they do have that "potential human life thing." I've always thought that
was just bizarre. Thanks to cloning, regular cells are potential human life
too.
|
suzie
|
|
response 145 of 404:
|
Oct 24 00:09 UTC 1998 |
Potential human life? Wow, does that mean that I'm some kind of evil
sinner murder every month when I don't have unprotected sex when I'm
fertile and kill the potential human baby that God wanted me to have
and like gee no wondr I think the pope is a stupid bonehead jerk.
|
scg
|
|
response 146 of 404:
|
Oct 24 01:06 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, and if you think that's bad, sperm have a lifespan of only a few days,
if I remember correctly.
|
kenton
|
|
response 147 of 404:
|
Oct 24 01:31 UTC 1998 |
I'm not the pope, and I hesitate to call anyone a sinner, but I would be very
cautious about aborting any age fetus.
While I agree that a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body,
it should be remembered that what she does may effect others. If a woman
wants no children,she should get sterilized and use birth controls or
abstinence. If she becomes pregnant, then she has two bodies to think about.
The idea that at some point in time a fetus suddenly becomes human life is
ridiculous. It is human life as soon as the first cell starts to split (if not
sooner).
I think that cloning has a long, long, long ways to go before they can take
a skin cell and make a complete human from it.
To answer a question aways back....I said a soul after 8 cells, because if
God supplied a soul after the initial egg was fertilized, then identical twins
would be forced to share it. Please understand that this is my thought and
I have no Biblical or other basis for it.
Take an adult from their house, in winter, for a long period of time and you
have removed them from their life support. Especially if you allow them no
clothes. They will die as surely as a premature baby removed from it's life
support.
Show a small child a pregnant lady, and ask the child what is in her belly and
the answer will be, "A baby". How can children think so straight, while adults
delude themselves? Use logic not rationalization.
|
kenton
|
|
response 148 of 404:
|
Oct 24 01:38 UTC 1998 |
This statement was made a ways back "(we all know how well the
earlier 'total illegality' of abortion was - abortion was about as common
as it is now, but with much worse consequences for human health.) "
I would like to see this substantiated. I think the present rate far exceeds
prior rates.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 149 of 404:
|
Oct 24 02:24 UTC 1998 |
Uh, just to clarify the Catholic Church's position (no pun intended) on
sex and birth control: The Church sez that every sexual act should be
*open* to the possibility of pregnancy. That is, sexual activity which
by it's nature precludes pregnancy and/or is done solely for the purpose
of pleasure (masturbation, oral encounters, homosexual activities, sex
using artificial birth control, etc.) is discouraged. In addition,
certain methods of artificial birth control (the pill, IUDs) can cause a
fertilized egg to be expelled, which is a no-no as the Church believes
that life begins at the moment of conception.
|