|
Grex > Agora46 > #77: Abortion clinics SHOULD be bombed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 209 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 145 of 209:
| 
Aug 7 23:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 146 of 209:
|
Aug 7 23:08 UTC 2003 |
russ, you have absolutely no idea what I believe or why I believe it. And
as I have said before, my position on abortion is not religious, but
humanitarian.
, and to some extent constitutional.
As far as proofs of God verses atoms, while I see the interactions of atoms
every day, I also believe I see the interactions of God every day.
Believing in science does not equate a disbelief in God. Just because you
choose to disbelieve, to think you can make me.
|
lynne
|
|
response 147 of 209:
|
Aug 8 01:04 UTC 2003 |
146: Somewhere back there you made a comment along the lines of "no one
here will ever understand why I feel abortion is evil." Sure we understand
it--get over yourself. Most of us simply don't agree. Me, I'm a trained
scientist. Logical explanations supported by hard evidence win out over
smug self-righteous posturing and hand-waving about imaginary evidence
every time. Meanwhile, I think you should go read Atlas Shrugged, because
I'd enjoy watching your head explode.
Russ' post isn't aimed at making you deisbelieve, it's just pointing out that
there's nothing solid on which your faith is based. Congratulations. You're
a textbook example of my point in 117. Thanks.
|
kami
|
|
response 148 of 209:
|
Aug 8 05:56 UTC 2003 |
re: 135- Yeah. Sort of. Wanna come do my upteen loads of laundry so I can
sit in a nice, hot, wet bath instead? <eg>
|
polygon
|
|
response 149 of 209:
|
Aug 8 16:39 UTC 2003 |
Re 125. I'm amused that the author goes out of his way to claim that
Greenville is a nice, friendly, tolerant town.
I remember Greenville as the place where the city government seized
and leveled all of its historic downtown buildings. I assume a
minimall was built to replace the destroyed downtown area.
|
dcat
|
|
response 150 of 209:
|
Aug 8 16:47 UTC 2003 |
Given that the byline is 'Tamara Audi', it might be safer to assume the author
is female.
|
tod
|
|
response 151 of 209:
|
Aug 8 17:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 152 of 209:
|
Aug 8 18:07 UTC 2003 |
Yes. If one happens to be a termite.
|
keesan
|
|
response 153 of 209:
|
Aug 8 20:46 UTC 2003 |
Downtowns tend to be brick. They probably wanted more space for cars.
|
russ
|
|
response 154 of 209:
|
Aug 8 21:23 UTC 2003 |
Bruce said in #146:
>my position on abortion is not religious, but humanitarian...
Humanitarian concern for organisms which cannot think or even feel?
(Brain patterns characteristic of consciousness do not appear until
the 30th week. That is SEVEN months, the THIRD trimester.) What
about humanitarian concern for the woman... or is she irrelevant?
>and to some extent constitutional.
The same Constitution which refers to "citizens born or naturalized"?
I don't think so. If those excuses were horses, you'd have shot them.
|
tod
|
|
response 155 of 209:
|
Aug 8 22:11 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 156 of 209:
|
Aug 9 03:49 UTC 2003 |
I don't disagree with Bruce's distaste for abortion. Society would be much
better if it was much rarer.
I like to think I know a bit about science, and I certainly believe
firmly in science, but I'm unaware of any scientific basis for deciding
if abortion is OK, or for making any other moral choice. Science is useful
for getting your facts straight, always a good first step in addressing
a moral issue, but it won't resolve the moral issue. That's a values
issue, and there is no science of values.
So I disagree with the tendency of some pro-choice people to dismiss the
nastiness of abortion, and say isn't bad or it doesn't matter. But also I
disagree with the pro-life idea of banning abortion. Depending on how you
implement such a law, it is either absurdly ineffective or a brutal
intrusion into the private lives of adult women. Most likely both.
You can argue about whether or enforcing a law against abortion would be
more or less evil than abortion itself. I really don't care. I think
there are lots of things we could do that would be more effective than
illegalization and be less of an imposition on women. Some of those should
plainly be attempted before we even think about banning abortion.
|
klg
|
|
response 157 of 209:
|
Aug 9 04:01 UTC 2003 |
We find it un Jan-like to dichotomize the world into two polar
opposites: Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life. Does he not generally see the
world in terms of shades of gray rather than black vs. white? Why would
not this apply to the abortion debate, as well?
|
janc
|
|
response 158 of 209:
|
Aug 9 04:44 UTC 2003 |
You think I invented the "pro-choice / pro-life" business? There aren't two
such entrenched camps anywhere else on the political landscape. But it's not
really a dichotomy. They aren't even opposite each other. "Anti-choice" and
"anti-life" really exist only in the imaginations of the respective "pro"
camps, neither image quite fitting the real opposition. It's no wonder that
all the debates consist mostly of both sides shooting arguments at
non-existant targets, while the folks on the other side scatch their heads
and wonder why their opponents think what they are saying has any relevance
to the issue.
Personally, I like to define myself as "pro-choice and pro-life". Hey, the
government promises us "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," so why
should I have to choose between life and liberty? I'll take both.
In practice, the place I end up at is more compatible with the "pro-choice"
camp than the "pro-life" camp, but it does give me the opportunity to disagree
with both from time to time, and allows me to co-opt the best arguments from
both sides.
|
i
|
|
response 159 of 209:
|
Aug 9 04:47 UTC 2003 |
My impression is that the pro-life movement contains a very wide variety
of beliefs and a great deal of internal conflict...and one of the greatest
advantage that they've collectively enjoyed is that the pro-choice movement
is too blind to notice this or too stupid to make effective use of it.
|
scott
|
|
response 160 of 209:
|
Aug 9 12:14 UTC 2003 |
Re 158: The klg's are trying to derail your argument over some little detail,
Jan. The goal is to waste your time, since he/they are obviously not capable
of actually arguing against you.
|
novomit
|
|
response 161 of 209:
|
Aug 9 12:41 UTC 2003 |
I tend to fall in the pro-life and pro-choice camps to a degree. Personally
I don't like the idea of abortion, and I think there are better alternatives
(I mean wouldn't slapping a condom on your dick be rather less of an
inconveneicne than having an abortion?). I also tend to try to respect the
right to live of all living things as much as possible. The "child" that is
killed in an abortion procedure (whether the hair splitters agree if it is
a child or not) could very well be the man/woman to cure cancer one day. Or
it could just end up being a nobody (each of whom I would say the is of equal
value in humanitarian terms). However, enforcing such a law that bans all
abortions would be unenforceable in practise . . . it would be like a law
outlawing masturbation . . . you can outlaw it but realistically speaking
there is no real way to enforce it. The same sort of argument can be applied
to legalising prostituion . . . you ay think it a nagative thing, ut outlawing
it just makes it harder to regulate and makes things worse. Aslo I really
dislike the idea of women beiong forced to adopt what someone else ragrds as
a universal morality. It is ultimately the bearer of the child that will be
supporting that child for the next 20 years or so. Some people are not
qualified to be parents, and they know it, for financial or emotional or
whatever other reasons. What is the alternative for these people who do it
because they feel they have no other choice? Are there droves of anti-abortion
activists willing to foot the bill for these children once they are born if
the mother agreed to their argument? If the child will be given uop for
adoption after birth, is there any guarantee of a decent family taking the
child inas their own? Politicians like to narrow this down to a simple black
and white issue, but it is not quite so simple.
I found later in life (mid-20's) that my mother considered aborting me since
they had so little money. I can't balme them for considering that option, even
when it was illegal, considering their circumstances, but I seem to be glad
for even th meager potential that I have been able to reach thus far.
|
mary
|
|
response 162 of 209:
|
Aug 9 12:51 UTC 2003 |
If you want to solve abortion you go to the source of the
problem - sperm. If men were held responsible for their
sperm both the woman's pregnancy and the dead baby wouldn't
be happening. Men must be held accountable for what they
do with their sperm under penalty of law. Any God worth
His salt would agree.
|
novomit
|
|
response 163 of 209:
|
Aug 9 13:00 UTC 2003 |
In an ideal world, true. But in practise it is usually the women who` get stuck
with the unwanted children. Even if the male contributes money, there is a
lot more involved in rearing a child than cash.
|
mary
|
|
response 164 of 209:
|
Aug 9 13:10 UTC 2003 |
Oh, I don't know. I suspect after the first few thousand
guys are chemically castrated the word would get around
and there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Chemical castration would be an invasion of men's privacy
and rights to free ejaculation, you say? Well, so is
being forced to have a baby. Deal with it.
I don't see why this approach is any less realistic
than telling a woman she has no choice.
|
novomit
|
|
response 165 of 209:
|
Aug 9 14:25 UTC 2003 |
Oh, sorry, didn't know that was what you were talking about. If chemical
castration were the issue, I think it would be a good idea. I think there are
certain drugs that can do this now, like Depo_provera and such, but not sure
if it's legal. Know where I can get any?
|
janc
|
|
response 166 of 209:
|
Aug 9 15:49 UTC 2003 |
Seems like a vasectomy would be simpler.
The problem with Mary's plan is that it is too late. The way to solve the
abortion problem is step back and solve the "unwanted pregnancy" problem.
If people who didn't want baby's didn't get pregnant, then there would
be no abortions. Chemically castrating the man after the woman is
already pregnant is too late.
You know, vasectomies are sometimes reversable. What we need is a
reliably reversable form. Basically a vasectomy with an on/off switch,
be it chemical or surgical or whatever. All men get "turned off" before
puberty. Let's say with a surgically implanted valve. Like a vasectomy,
these would not interfere with sexual function. If a man wants to
father babies, they need to get "turned on". Maybe take a pill with a
chemical that the valve senses and which causes it to turn on as long
as the chemical is present in the blood stream. The pill should have
some observable and discouraging side effect, like persistant nausea
or turning your skin orange. If the side effect is obnoxious enough,
men could get family leave while "on the pill."
The advantage of doing this on the male side instead of the female side
is that there would probably be fewer risks to the health of babies.
A male just has to produce a motile sperm with undamaged DNA. A woman's
body has to do way more than that to successfully bring a baby to term,
so mucking up her body's cycles is far riskier.
Obviously there are some technological problems to be solved here, but
it seems like something of this sort could be achieved. You'd probably
also get a population decrease for free - an added bonus.
It sounds silly, but its a less stupid solution to the abortion problem than
outlawing abortion is.
|
bru
|
|
response 167 of 209:
|
Aug 9 18:05 UTC 2003 |
Sorry to tell you the facts of life, but it takes two to tango. Sperm are
nothing without egg, and I can tell you from personal experience it isn't
always the guy who wants to tango, nor is it always he who refuses the use
of a condom.
RU 486 is a very viable and acceptable option as far as I am concerned, but
how many women want to take the responsibility to get it and use it after
every interaction? That is really an unfair question, I know.
But is there a "morning after"pill women would use every time? Some times
they actually want to get pregnant and change their minds after they find out
he doesn't really care.
|
scott
|
|
response 168 of 209:
|
Aug 9 18:56 UTC 2003 |
Dude, if she doesn't want to use birth control you can still choose not to
insert.
|
janc
|
|
response 169 of 209:
|
Aug 9 19:25 UTC 2003 |
Any kind of "after" pill is an abortion. It may be OK with you (and I'm glad
you think so) but many people still find it troubling. Though I don't know
anything at all about RU-486, I don't think that it could possibly a very
"gentle" medication. It's got to do something that causes the pregnancy to
abort, which really means a fairly serious interuption of the normal function
of a woman's body. I doubt if that is anything anyone would want to do with
any regularity. I can't imagine it would be wise to use RU-486 or anything
like it as a routine substitute for birth control.
Yes, I know it takes two and people don't always want to use condoms. That's
just the point of my customized version of Mary's proposal. Stopping an
unwanted pregnancy after the act is abortion and undesirable. Stopping it
during the act (conventional birth control) depends on the sensible behavior
of people with other things on their mind, and is demonstrably unreliable.
So stopping it before the act is the sensible solution. You don't need to
sterilize both sexes - that would be redundant. One will suffice. It might
as well be men, since the male reproductive system is so much simpler, and
anyway, women already bear the brunt of the inconvenience in reproductive
issues.
And it changes the psychology of having a child. It becomes something that
you have to decide to do well in advance, not an accident or
spur-of-the-moment decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if the birth rate fell
something like 25% under such conditions (I expect more baby's are "accidents"
but many are "welcome accidents" so that the parents would have eventually
decided to have a baby if it hadn't happened "by accident"). Such a cut in
the birth rate would be a boon for mankind, plus there'd be substantially
fewer neglected children.
|