|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 150 of 216:
| 
Oct 14 00:35 UTC 2000 |
Could you elaborate on that?
If someone really believe that a fetus is a defenseless human being and that
abortion is the same thing as murdering a child, how can they *possibly*
agree that it's OK to permit an exception because of the circumstances
of the conception?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 151 of 216:
|
Oct 14 03:39 UTC 2000 |
"The sins of the fathers are visited on the children, unto seven generations."
|
senna
|
|
response 152 of 216:
|
Oct 14 03:48 UTC 2000 |
I think it's mostly a pragmatic stance. Pro-life would be hard to sell if
they kept encouraging rape victims to have kids they didn't want. Thankfully,
extreme situations like that are rare.
|
md
|
|
response 153 of 216:
|
Oct 14 04:03 UTC 2000 |
It's more a puritanical attitude that says it's okay to abort the fetus
if you didn't have any fun conceiving it. But if you enjoyed the sex,
you gotta pay.
|
polygon
|
|
response 154 of 216:
|
Oct 14 04:39 UTC 2000 |
As to md's abortion quiz, I completely agree with those who have observed
that the examples cited are "not okay" but "should continue to be legal."
|
jp2
|
|
response 155 of 216:
|
Oct 14 05:00 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 156 of 216:
|
Oct 14 13:49 UTC 2000 |
In the case of md's questions all three women would be making
the right decision to abort their pregnancies. They don't
want these children. It's their womb.
|
mary
|
|
response 157 of 216:
|
Oct 14 13:49 UTC 2000 |
wombs
|
mary
|
|
response 158 of 216:
|
Oct 14 13:50 UTC 2000 |
They could also be interesting friends. I don't have enough
information to rule that out. ;-)
|
jp2
|
|
response 159 of 216:
|
Oct 14 17:53 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 160 of 216:
|
Oct 14 18:07 UTC 2000 |
Rane> In ANOTHER item, in a now dead thread, somebody other than me sggested
that there was evidence for the Afterlife. You and I discussed the nature of
spirituality, faith, and evidence, during which you asked me for evidence and
I responded by saying I don't have any that you would accept, and never did
I pretend that I had.
Your question: Provide scientific evidence for the souls survival after death.
My answer: I cannot.
In case you hadn't noticed, Rane, everyone else is getting on with their
lives.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 161 of 216:
|
Oct 14 18:23 UTC 2000 |
You keep bringing it up. Why can't you let it go and move on?
Re #160: we kill some felons because they are an inconvenience. Eventually
more people will understand that since society makes the rules, it has
made rules allowing killing humans for a variety of reasons. The newest
ones appear to be abortions, simply because it is the mother's inherent
right up to a certain term of gestation, for any reason she wishes (new
rule #1), and medically supervised euthenasia (ala Oregon), because it
is an old, ill, person's inherent right (new rule #2).
|
mary
|
|
response 162 of 216:
|
Oct 14 20:05 UTC 2000 |
Re: 159. There are inconveniences and then there are inconveniences.
Having a baby you don't want is getting up there on the scale.
But I do admire men who prize life to such a degree that they wouldn't
think of having sex unless they have made a conscious decision to make a
baby. They would have discussed this with the sperm receiver, at length,
and worked out a plan for both emotional and financial support through the
age of 18. If you are one of these guys, kudos. You can talk high
and moral about the holocaust of abortion.
If you squirt and run, well, you're part of the problem and
not very righteous afterall.
|
jp2
|
|
response 163 of 216:
|
Oct 14 20:13 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 164 of 216:
|
Oct 14 20:14 UTC 2000 |
#161> You're accusing me of something I'm not doing, i.e., failing to answer
a question. And, to my perception, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 165 of 216:
|
Oct 14 20:43 UTC 2000 |
Let's see, how can we both get the last word? It seems to be the willard
infection.
|
mary
|
|
response 166 of 216:
|
Oct 15 01:27 UTC 2000 |
You have my permission, jp2, to kill your boss if he insists on
crawling into your abdomen and staying there for nine months.
You don't have to take that. Good thing, eh?
|
russ
|
|
response 167 of 216:
|
Oct 15 02:11 UTC 2000 |
Unfortunately for Mary's appraisal (with which I concur, mostly)
there are issues which don't exist in the context of an individual
decision which arise when such techniques become widely used.
Case #1 of response 125 is one of these. If one yuppie couple
decides to select for a boy, it has no impact. But suppose that
several million yuppie couples do this? All of a sudden the
normal gender ratio of a cohort is skewed. Assuming that the
usual number of these extra boys are heterosexual, where are they
going to find mates 20 years ahead? They won't be there. India
and China are already seeing the spectre of this problem; there
are so many unwanted girls in China, adoption of Chinese girls
into America is a profit center for Beijing.
Maybe the yuppies should have to participate in a sex-selection
auction or something, where people who want a child of a particular
sex bid for the right to select and their payment goes to subsidize
someone willing to select for a child of the opposite sex. If you
have a market in sex-selection rights, the sex-ratio issue goes away.
(Making people pay for the priviledge of selecting is another issue.)
Cases 2 and 3 don't create any difference from a lack of conception
in the first place, and don't raise such issues.
|
drew
|
|
response 168 of 216:
|
Oct 15 03:47 UTC 2000 |
My solution for the gender ratio problem is to teach the kids "share and share
alike". Get over the Exclusive Sex Fetish.
|
mary
|
|
response 169 of 216:
|
Oct 15 12:22 UTC 2000 |
Folks can already select for sex, it's done all the time,
although mostly to avoid certain gender-specific genetic
diseases. But even when sperm is selected for artificial
donation a by-product of the preparation is more male
than female-making sperm.
Rane, do you think that within about a generation all
that fuss over boy children will not be so important when
young women become rare and valuable commodities?
I had heard that was already happening.
|
brighn
|
|
response 170 of 216:
|
Oct 15 20:44 UTC 2000 |
Rane> you can have the last word. Say something to me, and I won't respond,
and then this whole thing can die its death. =}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 171 of 216:
|
Oct 15 22:17 UTC 2000 |
Duh!
|
flem
|
|
response 172 of 216:
|
Oct 16 13:19 UTC 2000 |
(Peeve: Why, when people feel the need to quote dictionary definitions to
support their point, do they almost invariably pick the American Heritage?
Does no one besides me find their definitions to be childishly naive,
oversimplified to the point of being actually deceptive, and frequently
irrelevent to the word being defined? Or is it perhaps some kind of American
supremacy thing?
Pet Peeve: Why do people feel that quoting a dictionary definition helps
support their point? I've yet to see it be effective as anything other than
a pure rhetorical device. )
|
md
|
|
response 173 of 216:
|
Oct 16 13:57 UTC 2000 |
I agree. The only reason to quote from a dictionary is to make a joke,
and the only dictionaries an educated person would quote from are the
OED and Merriam-Webster.
|
jp2
|
|
response 174 of 216:
|
Oct 16 14:26 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|