|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
lumen
|
|
response 162 of 404:
| 
Oct 25 23:04 UTC 1998 |
ah, gridlock. :P
|
kenton
|
|
response 163 of 404:
|
Oct 26 03:45 UTC 1998 |
Rane, you missed the boat with your response about # 157. In fact you missed
the pier.
Mike, you win the booby prize. I wondered who would be the first to recite
from the preamble. But in my humble opinion, that is exactly what is being
done to many tiny babies. It proves that our constitution is only good for
some. If you don't want someone included, just make up some arbitrary ruling
to exclude them. Take black and white and mix them. Now you have a grey
area, so make up your rules to fit your desires. First start with the very
young and unborn who have only their uncaring mother to protect them.
Then add the very old, especially those who are blind and deaf. They don't
understand anyway. Get rid of them. Add the feeble minded and people with
terminal diseases. They are just a load on society. Finally add people who
are blonde and have green eyes. And don't forget those who don't believe as
you do. Like homosexuals.
Abortion just got the ball rolling. Where will it stop?
|
brighn
|
|
response 164 of 404:
|
Oct 26 06:36 UTC 1998 |
Suzie, can we avoid the Hero Worship at the expense of insulting the rest of
the conference?
Kenton> #157 is meant as support for your argument, but seems like support
against it. You ask, "If you were swimming to shore from a shipwreck, and had
a child as added weight, would you let the child die to save your own life?
Some would and some wouldn't." This is *exactly* the position most women who
seek abortions are in: Frequently, they've become pregnant by accident, and
they have a choice: Abort the child, or risk their career, their education,
or whatever else... in short, either drown the child, or risk letting the
child drag you down. I know of at least two women in this situation: Pregnant
early in their college career, they chose to carry the child to term; now,
without a college degree, they can't find a decent, well-paying job, so the
child is destined to live with the mother in the lower classes... the child
has metaphrocially dragged the mother down. Now, both of these women chose,
of their own free will, the baby over the degree... in short, they chose to
risk drowning themselves in order to save the child. But, as you yourself
point out, others would chose to let the child drown. You seem to have no
judgment call one way or the other; you make it a statement of fact. I agree;
the judgment call is up to the mother.
A woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to have a child has two choices:
(1) Abort the fetus
(2) Bring the fetus to term and either raise it or put it up for adoption.
Let's look at (2). If she chooses to raise it herself, she needs to examine
the likelihood that it will significantly affect her livelihood, which impacts
her happiness, which impacts her ability to raise the child. Perhaps she will
decide that the child is worth the sacrifices, and that she can look beyond
the problems to give it the love it needs to thrive. Perhaps she will decide
that the child is an albatross, and resent it for as long as it lives. If she
chooses to put it up for adoption, she risks placing it in an already
overfilled and overbureaucracized adoption system; perhaps it will find a good
home, perhaps a terrible one, perhaps it will wind up in foster care, hopping
from dysfunctional setting to dysfunctional setting. When the child is older,
perhaps it will love it adoptive parents as if they were birth parents, or
perhaps it will pine for the mother that abandoned it, in its view, and wonder
who she was.
Let's look at (1). Perhaps she will walk away from the clinic and never think
of the child again. Much more likely, she will lie awake wondering what the
child would have been like, whether she will ever get the chance to h ave a
child when she wants to... she might hear the voice of the child as she tries
to sleep; she might picture it in her nightmares. Abortion takes reality and
makes it potential, and we are left wondering about the potential, stuck in
a quagmyre of "what ifs."
I am not female. I am not ever going to be in the position to choose. But I've
talked to women who've gotten pregnant accidentally, both those who chose to
abort and those who chose to carry through. Above is an amalgam of precisely
the questions that each of them went through in their decision.
Anyone who thinks that the decision to abort is easy, or made lightly, is
sadly mistaken. Perhaps there are a few women out there who use it as a form
of birth control. But of the women I've talked to, who've been pregnant and
then, by their own volition, become unpregnant, the decision was filled with
introspection, guilt, and meditation.
"Do you think women want to kill their own babies?
If you got your own twisted baggage, then, maybe."
-- Consolidated
This is entirely different that ridding society of undesirables. Abortion is
about a mother choosing between what she perceives of being a trio of
unpleasant choices: Abort, raise, adopt. (Abortions that aren't medically
necissitated, that is.)
Comparing that to murderers (as Jan does) or to social undesirables, such as
the elderly and gays (as Kenton does) belittles both the issue of abortion,
and the relevant issues of crime management and fringe members of society.
|
md
|
|
response 165 of 404:
|
Oct 26 11:36 UTC 1998 |
Re #163, when societies start down the slippery slope you
describe, it isn't because government gives individuals power
over their own lives, as in Roe v. Wade. It's because government
attains power over individual lives, as in Mazi Germany. You're
right about selective rights, though. The "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness" language applies only to "men," as I recall.
But that's as it should be. ;-)
Anyway, why did you say you don't think anyone has the "right to
life," of all things? That's an incredibly strange position for an
anti-abortion person to take.
|
danr
|
|
response 166 of 404:
|
Oct 26 13:42 UTC 1998 |
Why does it seem every 'serious' discussion turns into an abortion debate?
|
mta
|
|
response 167 of 404:
|
Oct 26 16:14 UTC 1998 |
It doesn't actually happent hat way -- but it happens often enough over the
years to often seem thatw ay. ;
|
md
|
|
response 168 of 404:
|
Oct 26 17:12 UTC 1998 |
Who's the idiot who introduced the abortion topic into
this item in the first place?
|
brighn
|
|
response 169 of 404:
|
Oct 26 17:18 UTC 1998 |
me
I made an analogy between militant gay-bashers and militant pro-lifers, and
offended senna.
Then we slid down that proverbial slippery slope.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 170 of 404:
|
Oct 26 17:23 UTC 1998 |
Not to be confused with sliding down a slippery tunnel... ;->
|
md
|
|
response 171 of 404:
|
Oct 26 19:12 UTC 1998 |
[Gack. I thought it was me, brighn. I never would've used
the word "idiot" otherwise. 1,000,000 apologies.]
|
brighn
|
|
response 172 of 404:
|
Oct 26 20:27 UTC 1998 |
[Maybe it *was* you, after all. I honestly don't remember. Nor do I care.
We're debating abortion on a teensy BBS where those of us who on't agree with
us aren't going to change their minds anyway, and getting carpal tunnel and
inflated heads doing it, so I guess we're both idiots. =} ]
[The preceding was a joke, for the humor impaired.]
[MD doesn't strike me as humor impaired, otherwise I wouldn't've made such
a joke.]
|
senna
|
|
response 173 of 404:
|
Oct 26 23:27 UTC 1998 |
That was a joke? I took it as a mortal offense :)
(the preceding was sarcasm, but my sarcasm is hard to pick up anyway)
At least we haven't turned to insulting each other entirely yet. Debates lose
all of their appeal when people decide that the reason the other person holds
a different opinion is because they are mentally challenged and decide that
a quick path to winning the debate is to enlighten them to their stupidity.
Take politics, for example.
|
janc
|
|
response 174 of 404:
|
Oct 27 02:54 UTC 1998 |
Interesting. I'd expected resp:152 to raise at least a few flames.
It's pretty far from the politically correct pro-choice party line.
|
kenton
|
|
response 175 of 404:
|
Oct 27 03:21 UTC 1998 |
If people didn't have opposing views, there would be no debate. I personally
argue both sides of an issue (with myself) to try for a better understanding of
the issue....And for the smart asses...I haven't lost an argument with myself
yet. This conference has helped me gain a better understanding of the issue.
Never the less, if I knew that a woman was going to have an abortion, and
opportunity presented itself, I would try to dissuade her.
I only know of two women, who have had abortions. The first aborted a female
baby because her live in only wanted a boy. The second has had 7 abortions (
or so she claims). To me , both of these women have an ugliness that goes
clear to the bone. And I'm not talking about appearances.
Back to the homosexuals.... There is an ice skating champion named Rudy Galindo
or something like that. Many of his mannerisms, appear to be very female in
nature. Is this learned or inborn? Do all homosexuals have mannerisms and
characteristics of the opposite sex?
Cows when deprived of a bull will hop each other. In fact this is one way to
determine when to artificially breed them. I have also observed incarcerated
dogs of the same sex humping each other. But this action seems to be triggered
by limited or no access to the opposite sex. Human prisoners may exercise this
same phenomenon.
But what about people on the outside. Is homosexuality a natural choice or a
learned perverted action? Is it a matter of personal choice or a case of "I
can't help it".
|
janc
|
|
response 176 of 404:
|
Oct 27 03:40 UTC 1998 |
Kenton slipped in. But I'll post this response anyway.
I suspect that there is a reason why an awful lot of serious debates
turn into abortion debates. It's probably the same reason why so many
people use the abortion issue as an acid test for choosing who to vote
for. I think this country is divided between two different moral
viewpoints, and I think the abortion issue happens to be the one that
most starkly falls across that cleft. There is no other issue where
both sides feel they are so clearly right, and the other side is so
clearly wrong. A lot of other issues divide along similar (but never
really identical) lines. Not all gay-bashers are pro-lifers, nor vice
versa. Not even close. But there is enough correspondence in people's
minds so that when they try to fortify their positions on either side of
the gay question, both sides tend to reach for that stone that feels so
solid to them - the abortion question.
I experimented a while back with making the claim that I'm *both*
pro-life and pro-choice. Logical enough. Life and choice are both good
things. I argued that 1.5 million abortions a year in this country is
too many and that something should be done to reduce the number. But I
argued that illegalizing abortion would be a very ineffective way to
reduce abortions. The abortion rate was very high even while it was
illegal, and there is no reason to believe that illegalizing it again
would save a large fraction of those 1.5 million babies. Certainly it
would kill lots of women in backroom abortions, and it would be done at
the cost of losing women a great deal of freedom. It's a lousy way to
solve the problem. Better ways would be to do things like making birth
control more readily available, improving public education about birth
control, and throwing lots of research dollars at developing safer and
more effective birth control methods. This way, women who don't want
babys would be more likely not to get pregnant, and thus the abortion
rate would fall, while actually increasing women's practical freedom of
choice.
I figured this was the perfect solution. The best of both worlds. At
very least should be a program that both sides could agree on, even as
they continue the debate about the legality of abortion.
(I also figured that by grabbing both positive terms, "Pro-Choice AND
Pro-Life," I'd have all the good turf, leaving anyone who disagreed with
me stuck with defining themselves negatively, calling themselves
"Pro-Choice and Anti-Life" or "Anti-Choice and Pro-Life". I love to
fight dirty.)
Fat chance. The notion that there is might actually be common ground
between "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," that there exists a reasonably
practical program that could further the stated goals of *both* sides,
was thoroughly and completely unwelcome. I never found a single person
from either side who liked the idea. Objections were not to the content
of the argument, but to the notion of blurring the boundaries between US
and THEM. I was thoroughly and generally ignored.
The abortion debate is NOT about abortion. Nobody cares as much as all
that about that specific issue. It's really about a whole complex of
moral values that happen to be reflected in the standard formulations of
the two sides of that one issue. That's why people love debating it,
why all other issues feed into it, and why nobody likes me messing with
the stereotypical "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" positions.
My guess is that as time passes the particular deep issues that are
bugging society will shift, and the abortion issue will simply cease to
be interesting to people. In a century people may look back at the
abortion debate with the same puzzlement that we look back at debates
over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Solutions to the
abortion problem can be found as soon as we actually want them. But
right now we don't want them, because we like having the abortion issue
as a nice way to divide the good people from the evil people in minds.
|
mary
|
|
response 177 of 404:
|
Oct 27 04:01 UTC 1998 |
I don't think of pro-lifers as evil. I do think of the abortion
debate as being about a woman's right to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy.
Even if I didn't already know this I'd suspect the author of
that last response could never be pregnant.
|
janc
|
|
response 178 of 404:
|
Oct 27 04:09 UTC 1998 |
Responding to Kenton about homosexuality, inherited or learned:
Sexual preference is a preference. It works like all other preferences.
There are lots of sexual options, of which hetrosexuality,
homosexuality, and asexuality are just a few. Everyone has some
preferences among them. Those preferences originate pretty much the
same way all preferences do. To some degree you are born with your
preferences, but they are modified by your culture, your experiences,
and your education. A person who hates broccoli may be able to
cultivate a taste for broccoli (or they may not - there is a known
genetic component for that preference). Genetic or not, preferences may
shift with time.
If I stick you in jail and offer you only broccoli and brussel sprouts,
you will probably start eating whichever of those you prefer, no matter
how low they both are on your list of preferences. You may even get to
like them. Or you may get to hate them worse every time you eat them,
but still eat them. Same thing happens if I stick you in jail and offer
you only celebacy or homosexuality.
There is no real difference between sexual preferences and other kinds
of preferences, except that we are wired so that sex of any kind is
emotionally charged.
As for mannerisms - these are culturally determined. You'd probably
think a man who comes up and gives you a big hug and a kiss is acting
feminine. Or he might just be Russian. Everyone in our culture knows
what kinds of actions fit what kinds of catagories of people, and
consciously or unconsciously they choose. They may choose them to hide
what they perceive themselves to be, or they may choose them to
broadcast their identity. The latter is a bit more common, so there is
at least a decent chance that people acting in ways you think of as
"gay" really are gay. But don't bet on it. People are vastly more
complex than that.
|
other
|
|
response 179 of 404:
|
Oct 27 05:25 UTC 1998 |
by the way, the act of mounting is, in the dog world, a way of establishing
dominance in social relationships, not just a sexual behaviour. male and
female dogs alike engage in this activity, without regard to the sex of the
recipient. dogs usually only mate when the female is in heat.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 180 of 404:
|
Oct 27 12:18 UTC 1998 |
You would never think my husband is feminine when he gets up and gives
another man a big hug and kiss. And he isn't Russian (well, maybe some of
his ancestors were). Hugging is not a mannerism, it a culturally acquired
manner of greeting someone you care for a lot. Only in some parts of America,
with some dichotomized people, is it ever thought of as sexually determined.
(Jerry will hug those guys, also because he doesn't let other people's biases
effect his behavior.)
I can also take issue with another point you raise, Jan. Some predisposition
towards sexuality is innate. Some sexual orientation is a preference. When
you use the word preference, I always assume volition. I have seen and worked
with very young children who have shown clearly that they have a gender
orientation which differs from their biological structure.All people are born
with the propensity to be sexual. The valence towards males and females may
be viewed on a bell shaped curve continuum with the majority falling in the
center (with a strong hetero orientation). After early childhood and taking
into account genetic factors, the rest is acculturated.
|
brighn
|
|
response 181 of 404:
|
Oct 27 16:01 UTC 1998 |
(Shoot, system went down and I lost my first paragraph, which was,
basically: Jan, I agree with you entirely about abortion. I don't
know who you were talking to that didn't understand your points.
Only more verbose than that, because, well, I'm verbose.)
>
>Actually, you statements reminded me of a Bill Hicks comment (sampled on
>Tool's "Third Eye"): "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal
>freedom." Were drugs legal, I wouldn't take them (I drink very little
alcohol,
>I don't smoke, I avoid caffeine and only take over-the-counter medications
>when I'm unbearably ill); but I'm against their prohibition on grounds of
>principle. And yes, I've seen what drugs do to people, in the same way that
>I've seen what prostitution does to people, in the same way that I've seen
>what abortion does to people, in the same way... I don't care. Taking
>responsibility away from people because they can't handle it isn't the
>solution. Personal freedom is the MOST IMPORTANT concern... all others are
>secondary.
>
>"But wait!" cries the detractor... "This is a slippery slope! That means I
>should have the right to kill other people, and you're detracting from my
>personal freedoms in stopping me!"
>
>Nope, nope, nope. I have the right to get stoned. I have the right to risk
>my own life getting stoned. I do NOT have the right to get stoned and drive
>on the sidewalk and kill and injure others. My personal freedoms end where
>yours begin.
Homosexuality> I like the food analogy, and have used it myself. Somebody
asked (elsewhere, I beleive) how one can "choose" to be a lesbian (in
the context, for political reasons), and the food analogy response is:
The same way some people *choose* to be vegetarians, while others don't.
Some vegetarians get physically ill from meat, either for medical reasons
(allergy) or, much more commonly, for psychological reasons (they can't
rid themselves of the image of a slaughterhouse, for instance). My mother-
in-law can't eat turkey for the second reason. Some vegetarians, though,
could eat meat, but choose not to... some (like Selena) even crave meat
from time to time, but still avoid it.
At any rate, why on Earth does anyone CARE what anyone else does, so long
as it stays out of your own space?
((Show of hands... can any of y'all tell I'm a libertarian?))
I admit there are questions that are difficult to answer. Let's take
public nudity, for instance. I feel that I have the right to not wear
clothing, if I choose. But you may feel that you have the right to protect
your children from seeing a naked adult man. Both are legitimate rights,
so who gets their way?
Let's take public displays of affection. One of the things that those who
oppose gay rights say is that they don't want to see two men kissing each
other, and they don't want their kids exposed to that. In fact, they oppose
PDAs in general, but feel taht heterosexuals, who tend to be much less open
in public, are within acceptable tolerance levels.
Let's take pornography. Psychologists feel that exposing young children to
hardcore pornography unduly traumatizes them. I feel that I should have the
right to view whatever I want to.
So who wins?
Well, we've only had the legal system we've had for a few centuries. Before
that, what was the answer? Social values, mores, and regulation... personal
ethics and responsbility were tantamount, and when those were abuse, people
were ostracized.
My girlfriend has four children, all under the age of ten. They've been
over to my house. I haven't shown them my porn mags, not because I think
it's against the law, and that I risk imprisonment, but because I don't
think it's appropriate for them to see it, any more than I think it's
appropriate for them to see ultraviolent movies, like Terminator and Die
Hard. If I had a boyfriend, I wouldn't drop to my knees and suck his cock
in the middle of a store not because it's illegal but because it's not
appropriate behavior (and who knows, I might do it a few times for the
sheer thrill of it, but not on a regular basis)... just like I'm not
openly sexual with my wife or GF in public because it's just not
appropriate.
"But," say the detractors, "it's wonderful that you have a strong sense
of ethics, but not everyone does, and we need protection from them."
BULLSHIT. Telling the government to protect you and yours from the bad,
filthy people doesn't make them go away. Instead, it changes people from
thinking about ethics to thinking about laws... people stop doing things
because they're right or wrong, and start doing things because they're
legal or illegal. Instead of blaming themselves when they do something
inappropriate, they start blaming the government for daring to catch them.
It starts becoming a game... can I suck another guy's cock in public
without getting caught? Can I wave my wang in front of a six-year-old?
When there are no legal limits of behavior, there are no legal limits
to test.
All right, I'll shut up for now. =}
|
drew
|
|
response 182 of 404:
|
Oct 27 21:19 UTC 1998 |
Count me as another who is Pro-Choice and likes Janc's idea of improving birth
control.
|
brighn
|
|
response 183 of 404:
|
Oct 27 21:47 UTC 1998 |
Actually, it's unfathomable to me why anyone -- pro-choice or otherwise --
wouldn't agree with the statement, "It would be good to come up with ways to
decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 404:
|
Oct 27 22:10 UTC 1998 |
But they would not agree with *how*.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 185 of 404:
|
Oct 28 00:19 UTC 1998 |
|
kenton
|
|
response 186 of 404:
|
Oct 28 03:17 UTC 1998 |
Re 181 Your statement (When there are no legal limits of behavior, there
are no legal limits to test.) is seemingly accurate, but the word ignore should
be substituted for test.
The phrase Pro-choice is a good one, which conjures up all sorts of imagined
rights. I am curious about the cross section of women who get abortions.
What percentage are married? How many have had more than one abortion? How
many had medical problems that influenced them? What are their social
standards or range of affluence? What percentage have had more than just
moderate mental problems resulting from their choice? How many abortions occur
because the mother didn't want the inconvenience of a pregnancy? What is the
addition to the GNP due to the abortion industry? How many abortions occur
because the partners "took a chance"?
And figuring percentages, how could one compare the numbers of the babies who
would have had successful, happy, full lives to the numbers of those who should
never have been born.
I've asked some of those questions to point to this question: What makes an
abortion justifiable?
|