|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 187 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 150 of 187:
| 
Apr 7 22:09 UTC 2002 |
i friend of mine confided in me that once during sex the condom broke. she
ended up taking that 'morning after pill'. i wonder if klg is anti-condoms
too.
|
senna
|
|
response 151 of 187:
|
Apr 7 22:31 UTC 2002 |
This thread is another splendid example of three things: 1. Even people with
well-developed and formidable intellectual faculties are capable of being
idiots. 2. People that have the intelligence and/or discussion skills of
rice pudding aren't too hot either. 3. This debate will never, ever end,
particularly not while both sides are more interested in hanging their straw
men in effigy than actually talking to each other.
|
oval
|
|
response 152 of 187:
|
Apr 7 23:03 UTC 2002 |
149 slipped. i never get told wehn this happens anymore ..
for once i actually agree with russ. ;)
|
polygon
|
|
response 153 of 187:
|
Apr 8 02:10 UTC 2002 |
Hardly anyone disagrees with Russ ALL the time.
And they'd have pretty peculiar politics if they did.
|
janc
|
|
response 154 of 187:
|
Apr 8 04:24 UTC 2002 |
I think the "when life begins" stuff is all noise. Life began some 3
billion years ago and has just become more complex ever since.
I don't eat much meat. I think there are sound health and
environmental reasons for doing not doing so. I am not however a
vegetarian, because that requires a moral belief that I don't buy - the
belief that it is wrong to kill an animal to eat it. When I look at
life on earth, I see almost nothing but organisms eating each other.
Even plants that are powered by sunlight, are fertilized by the dead.
Any morality that declares the fundamental cycles of living, dieing and
eating as "evil" has to be wrong-headed. I believe life is a great
good, and that the killing of some individuals to sustain others is a
necessary part of life. I also consider the focus on animals odd. Is
killing a two-year-old chicken to make a dinner really that much worse
than killing a sixty-year-old oak tree to make a dining table? I
personally like oat trees better than chickens.
So, soft-hearted liberal though I am, I do not consider all killing
evil in any general or universal sense. There are specific sorts of
killing that I dislike to various degrees for various specific reasons.
(1) The most obvious is that I don't approve of people killing me or my
family members. All living things are programmed for preservation of
their genetic lines. That's part of how the engine of life works.
(2) I'm an unusual animal, having the capicity to build social networks
with other living things. Mostly humans, but also my trusty old dog
Blue, and such like. They provide emotional and physical support to
me. I'm justifiably pissed when someone goes killing them.
(3) This extends beyond my immediate social network through a social
contract. If you don't kill me or my friends and relatives, then I
promise not to kill you or your friends and relatives. So I'm a strong
supporter of laws against murder. But I'm willing to kill blatant
violators of the social contract (my doubts about the death penalty are
founded more on its practical implementation than the morality of
killing killers).
(4) Preserving environmental diversity is important to all members of
the biosphere, so killing a rare life form is worse than killing a
common one. So I object strongly to the killing of blue whales and
snail darters.
(5) There is an intellectual variation on that. Killing people with
rare knowledge, experience and skills is especially annoying. However,
since we've already enacted a ban on killing members of the social
contract, this is mostly redundant and irrelevant.
(6) I general disapprove of aimless killing. You shouldn't destroy
anything without reason. Killing should never be casual. As a living
thing, I'm constitutionally opposed to increasing entropy.
(7) We have a tendancy to dislike the killing of things that are cute
and helpless. I think we are wired this way to keep us from killing
our babys, and that other living things occasionally accidentally
confuse our instincts (kittens and baby seals). I'm suspicious of the
whole thing and not inclined to give it much weight.
So that pretty much sums up the cases where I think killing is wrong
(though some may have slipped my mind).
So what about abortion?
(1) Well, I clearly may have strong objections to aborting my own
babies, since I'd like to preserve my particular genetics. Can I
object to my children aborting their babies on this basis? Probably
not. The baby is more closely related to them than to me, so their
right to decide whether or not to have children trumps my right to
decide whether or not to have grandchildren.
(2) Unborn babies are not in my social network.
(3) Unborn babies are not participants in the social contract. Their
parents are however, so I affirm the right of parents to not to have
their unborn babies killed by others.
(4) Well, if the human race is ever on the brink of extinction, I think
abortion should be banned. Not an immediate problem. Babies are not a
rare commodity at this time.
(5) Unborn babys do not have unusual skills, experience or knowledge.
(6) OK, so I think people shouldn't have abortions just for fun.
Nobody does, so this isn't an issue.
(7) I'll award unborn baby's the cute and helpless award. However, I
don't recognize the validity of this objection to killing.
So, while I'm perfectly willing to consider unborn babies human from
conception (and even before conception, I'm willing to consider sperm
and egg cells human), I still fail to see any overwhelming reason why
they must never, ever be killed under any circumstances.
"Sanctity of life" is usually used to describe a belief that all human
lives are sacred. I don't believe anything like that. If I say "Life
is Sacred" I mean the whole of life in our biosphere. One of the
principles by which the biosphere functions is individual
self-preservation, and cooperation among individuals and species to
increase their likelihood of self-preservation. I think all morality
flows from that.
The most plausible argument I could see for banning abortion would be
extending the social contract to include unborn people. The need for
this is less than compelling. But we already do it for new born
people, and even people expected to be born within three months. This
is because much of the power of the social contract is it's broad
inclusiveness. It includes virtually everyone who can by any stretch
of the imagination be included - suspected criminals, people in comas,
etc. The boundaries are always sources of danger and confusion.
Putting them very far out is generally wise. In the case of abortion,
I think the current dividing line does a good job of allowing adequate
time for parents to decide if they really want a baby. I don't think
the baby magically becomes human at the point when it is no longer
legal to abort him, just as I don't think a person magically becomes an
adult when he reaches the age to vote or drink or drive. These are
legislative conveniences, not biological facts.
So I don't think there are any arguments against abortion strong enough
to justify a ban. It is unpleasant to have millions of unborn babies
destroyed each year. It's a crude and ugly form of birth control. As
a society we should be looking for ways to reduce that number, but not
at the expense of taking control of their lives away from adult humans.
Better to do it in ways that increase people's ability to chose not to
become pregnant if they don't want a baby.
|
jazz
|
|
response 155 of 187:
|
Apr 8 04:26 UTC 2002 |
I don't believe that anyone actually thinks that something magical
happens when a baby's head first emerges that gives it some special property
of humanity, and more than I believe that most pro-lifers have a secret agenda
of reproductive opression. Let's at least admit that, whatever our stance,
it is a long and complicated issue that, even without the emotions so many
have invested in it, might never be resolved.
|
brighn
|
|
response 156 of 187:
|
Apr 8 04:54 UTC 2002 |
#151> I'm curious as to how your post is superior in any way. Rather than
taking a stand either way, you just insult everyone. Sounds like you've got
a chip on your own shoulder to contend with.
|
lk
|
|
response 157 of 187:
|
Apr 8 05:19 UTC 2002 |
I just don't understand what abortion has to do with same sex
marriage in Kansas.... Are we not in Kansas any more?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 158 of 187:
|
Apr 8 05:34 UTC 2002 |
Didn't you notice when we got to OOOZE?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 159 of 187:
|
Apr 8 05:47 UTC 2002 |
Cheating hubby
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062002/gossip/pagesix.htm
THE first ever same-sex divorce was granted yesterday
in Burlington, Vt., the state where homosexuals were
given the right to marry their partners two years ago.
Successful architect Arthur Tremblay, 47, was granted
a divorce from Hirsch Shaw, 27, on grounds of
adultery. Under Vermont law, Tremblay could get
alimony, but Shaw, who is in "retail," has a much
smaller income than his mate of one year. Playwright
Larry Myers has been given exclusive rights to tell
Tremblay's sad story and will call the play "Same Sex
Divorce." " 'The Gay Divorcee' was already taken,"
Myers explained.
|
senna
|
|
response 160 of 187:
|
Apr 8 11:33 UTC 2002 |
#156: I'm just trying to fit in.
|
other
|
|
response 161 of 187:
|
Apr 8 11:58 UTC 2002 |
He should know you can't copyright a title.
|
gull
|
|
response 162 of 187:
|
Apr 8 14:11 UTC 2002 |
Re #139:
> "Culture of death"? I don't think it's abortion that's created
> the "culture of death." I think there are problems that run a lot
> deeper in that particular issue.
There's capital punishment, for starters.
Re #154: What's troubling is that the same people who are against
abortion often seem to be against other forms of birth control as
well. I wonder how many more abortions will occur as a result of
Bush's decision not to allow school to teach birth control methods?
|
brighn
|
|
response 163 of 187:
|
Apr 8 14:57 UTC 2002 |
#161> Yes, but it's a courtesy to not use titles that you know are already
connected to well-known works. (And you *can* trademark titles, but usually
only movies do that.)
|
flem
|
|
response 164 of 187:
|
Apr 8 19:03 UTC 2002 |
"Culture of death"? Of course we live in a culture of death. Many of the
greatest cultural achievements of every culture, not excluding our own, are
concerned, even obsessed, with death. I fail to see this as a problem.
|
polygon
|
|
response 165 of 187:
|
Apr 8 20:52 UTC 2002 |
Many difficult problems can be solved quite easily by inducing death on
the part of the person causing the problem. This is why capital
punishment, euthanasia, duelling, assassination, and so forth have always
been popular.
Instinctive resort to these kinds of solutions is what "culture of death"
means to me. My notion of humaneness means opposing the convenience of
each of these things on broader societal grounds.
When legalized abortion was widely debated in the 1960s and 1970s, many
opponents of legalization argued that it would move society in the
direction of the "culture of death" as described above, in other words
that legal euthanasia, legally induced death for the disabled and mentally
ill, etc., would surely follow.
I draw a sharp distinction between early-term abortion and all the other
practices mentioned above, but the simple analogy is undeniable, and some
slopover of thinking has surely taken place over the last three decades.
Thus, as part of maintaining the bright line between extinguishing a
blastocyst inside the body of someone who doesn't want it to be there, and
killing a fully born human, I feel it's important not just to support
legal abortion but to (just as firmly) oppose capital punishment, legal
euthanasia, etc.
|
russ
|
|
response 166 of 187:
|
Apr 8 22:22 UTC 2002 |
Re #152: You know this means the end of the world is near, don't you?
Re #154: Actually, the traditional method of "family-size control"
(can't call it birth control) for thousands of years was... infanticide.
It was practiced widely; abandonment and exposure were all but certain
to do the dirty work. Oedipus Rex is a story of a failed infanticide.
The Irish tales of children being "taken away" are the same, I hear.
(The current Irish Catholic opposition to abortion is very ironic.)
People who call abortion "barbaric" have no idea how much better it
is versus the historical status quo ante. Contraception is a bigger
improvement, but no method is perfect and sometimes the safest methods
aren't the most reliable. (I once read that the safest system of birth
control is a diaphragm with abortion as a backup; this yields the
smallest chances of untoward medical consequences. If RU-486 is ever
put into widespread use, diaphragm+RU-486 would be even safer. But
the radical right would still be yelling about the A-word...)
|
keesan
|
|
response 167 of 187:
|
Apr 9 00:30 UTC 2002 |
Infanticide was not always the result of exposing an unwanted infant. Often
someone would come along and adopt it.
|
senna
|
|
response 168 of 187:
|
Apr 9 00:47 UTC 2002 |
Most protestant denominations don't actually object to birth control; those
are catholics you're thinking of, and a lot of catholics don't follow the
church doctrines on numerous points. Fundamentally-minded protestants do make
an awful lot of noise about not teaching birth control in schools, though,
because they believe that's essentially an endorsement. The message winds
up coming out kind of funny, don't you think?
It would cause problems if those political groups were really interested in
birth rates in other countries, because they'd have to conclude that solid
birth control education (even if it's only to <gasp> married couples) is one
of the best ways to control family size and begin to improve economics of the
"third world." It would sound really strange to promote BC in one country
and discourage it in another. These political elements solve the problem by
keeping the focus entirely on the States. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 169 of 187:
|
Apr 9 00:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 170 of 187:
|
Apr 9 02:34 UTC 2002 |
I would correct #168 from "Fundamentally-minded protestants do make an
awful lot of noise about not teaching birth control in schools, though,
because they believe that's essentially an endorsement" to " . . . because
they believe it is essentially an endorsement of sex outside of marriage."
|
senna
|
|
response 171 of 187:
|
Apr 9 07:49 UTC 2002 |
I thought that was implied, but re-reading I see where that could be misread.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 172 of 187:
|
Apr 9 08:05 UTC 2002 |
As a fundamentalist anglican (neither exactly 'protestant' and
not exactly capital-C 'catholic' although we are 'co-communicants'
with the Roman church and indeed 'share' clergy in many cases) I
believe the proper place for sex education *is* in the church
(remember me dah teaching such in the '70s which I attended - very
odd that was) and failing that, it belongs in the schools. But, as
in but with a big 'B', it must be normative and stress social values
such as abstinance and masturbation. Merely teaching little boys
the proper use of condoms without teaching little girls 'if you
love me you will do it' is one of the greatest lies of all times -
right up there with 'it is windows compatible' - is immoral and
anti-social.
|
russ
|
|
response 173 of 187:
|
Apr 9 12:31 UTC 2002 |
Re #170: Nothing stops people from having sex outside of marriage.
What birth control does is let them do it and "get away with it",
meaning not have any obvious sign (like a bulging belly) that SHE
did it. (It's always about "sluts"; the "studs" get off scot-free.)
The right wing claims to be "pro-family", but in a completely
predictable showing of the law of unintended consequences this
phenomenon produces lots of single parents instead of functional
marriages. People capable of thought would have figured this out
over the last 30 years, from which I independently derive the
conclusion that RTL-ers can't think.
|
brighn
|
|
response 174 of 187:
|
Apr 9 16:13 UTC 2002 |
"stress social values such as abstinance and masturbation"
EXCUSE ME? Do you not remember what happened when Jocelyn Elders, Clinton's
original Surgeon General, advocated teaching that masturbation is healthy and
natural? She was soundly trounced by the religious right, and left to hang
by Clinton.
Masturbation is *not* something something esteemed in this society. For some
inexplicable reason, it's considered even worse than having sex with someone
else.
|