|
Grex > Agora46 > #77: Abortion clinics SHOULD be bombed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 209 responses total. |
polytarp
|
|
response 175 of 209:
| 
Aug 10 02:41 UTC 2003 |
I like thinking about silly things.
|
novomit
|
|
response 176 of 209:
|
Aug 10 03:33 UTC 2003 |
Just call me clueless. I usuallt canna tell sarcasm when I read it unless you
add a P.S. saying it was intended sarcastically.
P.S. My finger hurts.
|
tod
|
|
response 177 of 209:
|
Aug 10 04:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jor
|
|
response 178 of 209:
|
Aug 10 14:56 UTC 2003 |
(171: methinks your post would be just as valid
without peoples' personal lives discussed.)
|
klg
|
|
response 179 of 209:
|
Aug 10 16:49 UTC 2003 |
A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, by Isaac Klein.
(This is a book published by the Conservative Jewish branch, and is
probably closer to the Orthodox than the Reform branch, but I wouldn't
know for certain. The 2 pages on this subject meerely skims the surface
of writings on it. I would presume that any decision of this nature
should be made by the competent parents in consultation with medical
personnel and, when possible, with religious authorities.)
"The question of abortion, though not new, has become an acute problemin
our day, and there is extensive literature on it. . . (A)bortion
necessarily involves the death of the embryo or the fetus. . .
"Where the mother's life is threatened, the law is clear and explicit,
the mother's life must be saved . . . as long as the child is in the
womb. Once part of the child is out, i.e., the head or the greater part
of the rest of the body, it is not touched because a life may not be
saved at the expense of another life. . .
"When the mother's health is imperiled, a distinction is made between
the early and late stages of pregnancy. In the early stages,
therapeutic abortion is permitted. . .
"Opinions differ about what constitutes the early stages. . .
definitions range from 40 days to 3 months. . .
"Some authorities would extend the permissibility of therpeutic abortion
to any maternal need. This would include cases of incest or rape where
shame or embarrassemnt to the mother . . . are considered threats to her
health.
"There is a consensus of opinion that mental health is on a par with
physical health. . . We would therefore conclude that abortion in the
early stages of pregnancy is permissible in a case where the woman's
physical or mental health is threatened by her fear that the may bear a
deformed child. . .
"When abortion is desired for reasons of convenience, however, it is
forbidden. . . ."
|
janc
|
|
response 180 of 209:
|
Aug 10 19:51 UTC 2003 |
No big surprises there.
|
russ
|
|
response 181 of 209:
|
Aug 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #166: The DISadvantage of doing that on the male side is that
one male can impregnate a lot of females. In situations such as
war men can be killed, taken out for military service and otherwise
be made unavailable, but I've read that the birthrate doesn't fall
much until females outnumber males by something approaching 6:1.
If orange skin was a sign of fertility, I could see a market in orange
skin dye so that guys could get the attention of baby-minded women.
Bathe in it before going to the bar, shower after getting laid.
Of course, solving the pregnancy problem wouldn't do a thing to
help the STD problem, and might even make it worse. These things
cannot be considered in isolation.
Re #167: Bruce, folks of your stripe are fighting to keep morning-after
pills unavailable. Wal-Mart won't carry them, to give one example.
Neither will pharmacies in Catholic hospitals. They seem to be doing
everything they can to make abortions necessary.
|
i
|
|
response 182 of 209:
|
Aug 11 01:22 UTC 2003 |
Re: #181 "Re:#167"
Russ, saying that folks who you see as similar to Bruce are working to
make something he suggests unavailable is, at best, meaningless. You
probably remind him of some folks who he doesn't think too much of, too,
but perhaps he's too on-topic or polite to mention it.
|
kami
|
|
response 183 of 209:
|
Aug 11 06:06 UTC 2003 |
I really like Jan's idea. Wish it would be feasible, without hormonal
tinkering, for women, too-- in this day and age, many women want to be able
to "play" without fear of producing a child they are not ready to raise.
On the other hand, some "accidents" work out better than some "plans". Perhaps
we ought not to remove *all* avenues for providence...
|
janc
|
|
response 184 of 209:
|
Aug 11 15:13 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Russ is right that this plan could cause an increase is STDs, as one of
the two major reasons for not having unprotected sex is diminished. However,
this proposal is aimed primarily at reducing abortion, not improving people's
sex lives.
Each child has one mother and one father. I don't see what the ability of
one male to father thousands has to do with anything. We aren't taking men
out of the population, as WWI did. The "turned off" men are still available
for sex, and any can still father children. The whole war analogy just
doesn't apply. And anyway, our goal is to reduce abortions. Any population
reduction we get is a fringe benefit. There is, of course, always a damping
effect in population reduction - if people notice the population falling, they
are likely to choose to have a few more children. But I expect that a
technology like this would lead to a substantially lower equilibrium
population.
It'd be interesting to see how the abortion camps would re-align if such a
technology appeared. Suppose a corporation appeared with some kind of
technology for a male switchable vasectomy, with features such that a woman
could tell if a man has it, and whether it is off or on. You could have at
least three politcal camps: allow it, ban it, and require it. I could see
pro-life and pro-choice people scattering all over that spectrum.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 185 of 209:
|
Aug 11 17:39 UTC 2003 |
Intercourse is not the only point at which it is desirable to prevent or
terminate a pregnancy. Women should also be able to abort for other reasons
as the pregnancy progresses. For example, for genetic or congenital errors,
or because of a change in the woman's circumstances. It should even be
possible for cases where a man insists on unprotected sex even against the
woman's wishes. It happens.
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 209:
|
Aug 11 17:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 187 of 209:
|
Aug 11 18:17 UTC 2003 |
they should offer free abortions at the 7-11?
|
tod
|
|
response 188 of 209:
|
Aug 11 18:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 189 of 209:
|
Aug 11 18:21 UTC 2003 |
*groans*
|
janc
|
|
response 190 of 209:
|
Aug 11 21:54 UTC 2003 |
Sure Rane. Do you think I disagree? I started from the premise that
illegalizing abortion is a stupid solution to the abortion problem. Nothing
in this hypothetical solution would make it any less stupid to illegalize
abortion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 191 of 209:
|
Aug 12 05:27 UTC 2003 |
No, I didn't think you disagree, but there were many responses that seemed
to assume that the question of abortion would be resolved if pregnancies
were prevented. But many pregnancies occur without a woman's consent, and
there are reasons for terminating pregnancies that were desired - including
convenience. Why should any woman be required to continue a pregnancy
during the first two trimesters if she doesn't want to, including changing
her mind about the whole thing? There are more substantial reasons than
just convenience, but convenience should be sufficient.
|
lynne
|
|
response 192 of 209:
|
Aug 12 15:20 UTC 2003 |
...given the extreme inconvenience of a pregnancy, I think I actually
agree with rane there. Shhh, don't tell anyone.
|
russ
|
|
response 193 of 209:
|
Aug 12 22:52 UTC 2003 |
Re #182: Pointing out the conflict between Bruce's values and the
actions of his ideological neighbors is intended to be informative
to all (many people do not know Wal-Mart's tricks) and allow Bruce
to reconsider his position if he feels like it.
|
janc
|
|
response 194 of 209:
|
Aug 13 01:07 UTC 2003 |
Yup, I'm not claiming to have a plan to eliminate abortions. I'd settle for
eliminating 95% or so. Which is more than I believe any feasible abortion
ban would ever do.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 195 of 209:
|
Aug 14 16:29 UTC 2003 |
What are Wal-mart's tricks?
|
tod
|
|
response 196 of 209:
|
Aug 14 16:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 197 of 209:
|
Aug 14 17:01 UTC 2003 |
Russ brought it up
|
russ
|
|
response 198 of 209:
|
Aug 16 13:45 UTC 2003 |
Wal-Mart loves to censor its product offerings to conform to
the politics of its management. Among other things, they:
1.) Demand bowdlerized versions of mass-market "music". (I
consider these things to be words over noise, but Wal-Mart
is not objecting to the lack of artistic merit. They
would probably object to "Compared to what" for several
parts of the lyrics. Phillistines.)
2.) Drop magazines because they don't like them. In many cases,
Wal-Mart is the biggest retail outlet for periodicals in
their local markets; refusing to carry a magazine may mean
it is effectively unavailable except by subscription.
3.) Drop drugs because they don't like them (not because people
don't need them). This includes morning-after pills. When
Wal-Mart's pharmacy has driven the independents out of business,
this may make certain drugs effectively unavailable in a
considerable geographic area.
In addition, Wal-Mart is brutal to suppliers. They demand large
advances and very liberal terms on returns, so a supplier has to lay
out large amounts of money to make product which Wal-Mart then
returns if it doesn't sell on schedule. Many businesses have been
driven out of business by a Wal-Mart "opportunity". Wal-Mart is
cannibalizing small and medium US enterprises and throwing Americans
out of work, but its management doesn't care.
All of this has led me to buy nothing from Wal-Mart unless I cannot
obtain it anywhere else.
|
goose
|
|
response 199 of 209:
|
Aug 16 14:32 UTC 2003 |
I have not set foot in a Wal-Mart in years for those very reasons.
|