For those of you that don't read Savage Love, an advice column by Dan Savage originally published in The Stranger and republished at TheOnion.com, here is a quote from the recent issue:
"Earlier this month, Republicans in South Dakota successfully banned abortion in that state. Last week, the GOP-controlled state house of representatives in Missouri voted to ban state-funded family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control. "If you hand out contraception to single women," one Republican state rep told the Kansas City Star, "we're saying promiscuity is okay." On the federal level, Republicans are blocking the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to **** up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're going to have those babies, ladies, and you're going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen. And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.
What's it going to take to get a straight-rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas is seeking to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God's sake! Wake up and smell the freaking Holy War, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!"
I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
OMGZ! We can't have people having teh crayzee sexx0rz! That would make us all SINNARS.
-pH
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, the trouble is that people don't have a right to sex without consequences, whether they are heterosexual or not. It might be nice to have that, but not at the risk of killing people.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
And democrats are on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Abortions should be allowed regardless of anything. That bothers me to, just as much as banning it all. Why can't there be a compromise in the middle?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
What type of middle ground do you see on this issue? To me it looks mostly like an either/or situation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
EC should DEFINITELY be available over-the-counter. Especially since Planned Parenthood is only open Monday-Friday.
So what do you do if you have sex Friday night and the condom breaks?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: And democrats are on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Abortions should be allowed regardless of anything.
*surprised look
quote:I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Hmm. It may not be my place to point this out, but in the past, posting something that was either deliberately inflammatory or was posted without any substantive commentary was considered to be bad form. That is, people here in general seemed to try to avoid things that were inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory, and people were also pretty good about putting something of themselves and their own views out there as gristle to gnaw on and digest.
Things may work differently now. I'm not sure. But (also in the past, and now, don't mind me, but back in the War, we usta ... ) I recall people being critical of others who did not bring up standards when it was in reference to a poster with whom they generally agreed, so ...
... where was I? Gerroff my lawn!
*grin
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
Would someone please point me to the people who don't want this vaccine on the market at all? Because I've looked, and haven't seen it. I've seen organizations and people speaking out against making the vaccine mandatory for all children but I've yet to see someone who wanted it blocked from the market entirely. Most of the concerns I've read about are that the vaccine might encourage sexual activity and that they would prefer instead of it being mandatory, that parents decide when and if to have their children vaccinated. That's a far cry from wanting to keep it off the market entirely.
And for the record, I've glad the vaccine is going to be available as the mother of three girls. I do not want it made mandatory, because I want to choose at what age my child receives it and I will encourage each of them to get it because even if they stay chaste until marriage, their future spouses may have been exposed, it only makes sense to take advantage of a vaccine that can offer them protection from cervical cancer.
But I'm sick and tired of seeing Republicans and religious conservatives painted as people who want women to die rather than see a vaccine hit the market. It's a distortion of the actual truth as I've seen it. There may well be a small fringe movement that would prefer to see the vaccine never hit the market but I doubt they are representative of Republicans or religious conservatives as a whole. Heck, you don't get much more conservative than me and I don't have a problem with the vaccine being available, I just don't want it to be made mandatory at a certain age. I'd rather be the one to decide when my kids get vaccinated.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: What type of middle ground do you see on this issue? To me it looks mostly like an either/or situation.
I see a middle ground being to allow it for those underage (a case could be made that it is a health risk anyways), rape, incest, and health to the mother. I honestly think if you are over 18, healthy, and consent to sex, then if nothing else put the kid up for adoption.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Doc Savage has removed facts before when getting into politics. He fails to mention the HPV vaccine is still experimental.
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
The study, which was supported by Merck Research Laboratories, will continue until all the participants have been followed for four years. Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., of the University of Washington in Seattle, led the team of researchers who conducted this study. An editorial by Christopher P. Crum, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston accompanies the report. There are other efforts to develop a cervical cancer vaccine, as well, including one trial sponsored by NCI that is not yet open to enrollment. "
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
In my way of seeing it, these issues are controversial enough that no one group should be able to dictate what choices the whole country should have. These issues, which are deeply grounded in some very closely held moral and religious beliefs are best left to the individuals involved, so that they can make the decisions that best conform to their own moral and religous principles.
If you sincerely believe that birth control, for instance, is wrong, then you should not employ it. And perhaps you should even make efforts to persuade people that they would be better off eschewing it. But you also have to realize that not every American shares your beliefs, and just as you wouldn't want some other group legislating a morality that is contrary to yours, you should not attempt to legislate your morality to others.
So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
Unless you have information you couldn't provide last time, we've already established here that this is a lie because they're not trying to ban it, merely keep it from being made mandatory.
Further, I doubt the 100% effectiveness rate. The best I could find is 90%.
quote:I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Since the author is factually careless and blurs the distinction between state funding of something and banning of something, I don't think much of it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I didn't mean that it is deliberately inflammatory, thought i suppose it was. just delightfuly so. i am more concerned with the content than the style. i agree wholeheartedly with what Dan says. I feel that it is no ones place to say if and when i can have sex and what the consequences of that will be. If there are alternatives available to help reduce the negative effects of sexual conduct, i believe they should be made widely and completely available.
one of the specific things that i would argue is that contraceptives are not only for single people. by denying the availability of contraceptives in gov't funded family-planning centers it is equivelent in my mind of saying "if you don't have enough money to buy contraceptives, you have to have more children."
also i think it is freaking insane that anyone anywhere, even Republican's in Kansas, to criminalize "heavy petting." i mean, indecent exposure is one thing, but come on!
furthernmore, i think this line is hilarious: "And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut." (in a really morose, dark comedy sort of way)
there, are you happy now CT?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: In my way of seeing it, these issues are controversial enough that no one group should be able to dictate what choices the whole country should have. These issues, which are deeply grounded in some very closely held moral and religious beliefs are best left to the individuals involved, so that they can make the decisions that best conform to their own moral and religous principles.
If you sincerely believe that birth control, for instance, is wrong, then you should not employ it. And perhaps you should even make efforts to persuade people that they would be better off eschewing it. But you also have to realize that not every American shares your beliefs, and just as you wouldn't want some other group legislating a morality that is contrary to yours, you should not attempt to legislate your morality to others.
So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice. What laws don't stem from the morality of other being imposed on everyone?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
there, are you happy now CT?
------------------ Yer young whippersnappers these days ...
(Yep. Thanks!)
quote:Doc Savage has removed facts before when getting into politics. He fails to mention the HPV vaccine is still experimental.
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
The study, which was supported by Merck Research Laboratories, will continue until all the participants have been followed for four years. Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., of the University of Washington in Seattle, led the team of researchers who conducted this study. An editorial by Christopher P. Crum, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston accompanies the report. There are other efforts to develop a cervical cancer vaccine, as well, including one trial sponsored by NCI that is not yet open to enrollment. "
I'm not sure exactly what you take the implications of your citation to be, Stephan. This seems (to me) to be information on a single particular trial registered with the .gov cancer registry.
But of course, that is not a summary of other randomized, controlled trials that are out there, so it doesn't really establish anything about the overall level of knowledge and evidence (or lack thereof) regarding this type of vaccine in general -- only what was and was not established in this particular study. And if I recall correctly, there have been at least 5 RCTs published in the literature.
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
While I agree with you on one level, is it not the government's job to protect the lives (more than lifestyles or even quality of life) of it's citizens? And IF (there is room to debate this, I know) you believe that life starts at conception, wouldn't it be proper, even necessary for the government to legislate against abortion?
I feel that birth control and vaccines fit in a totally different category and agree that they should not be legislated. It just needs to be made clear, crystal clear, that birth control is not 100% effective and every time you have sex there is a possiblity of becoming pregnant. If you become pregnant, that is the consequence of your choice to have sex and you cannot choose to opt out of it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice.
I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
By the way, I also oppose abortion.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice.
I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
By the way, I also oppose abortion.
I used to say the same thing, so I do understand where your coming from with that. But then I thought about why I oppose abortion. I think that there is a living person growing inside there, and I don't believe a mentally competent healthy adult woman, who knew the risk of having sex, has the right to terminate its life.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rien: And IF (there is room to debate this, I know) you believe that life starts at conception, wouldn't it be proper, even necessary for the government to legislate against abortion?
IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected. This is far from universally agreed upon, however. And making it our national law crosses a line, I think, between Church and State, because the government would be legislating one group's religious beliefs for the entire citizenry.
I have my own deeply held religious beliefs and practices. I am not comfortable with the government interfering with my moral choices in this issue.
And I think I especially am sensitive to concerns about the government instituting faith-based legislation because I practice a minority religion.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
On a similar topic, there's a controversy at the University of Oregon over the federally-funded FPEP program (Family Planning Expansion Project) that distributes free birth control (condoms, pills, etc) and provides STD tests to students. Apparently it is against the program rules to distribute condoms to gay or heterosexual couples who are not "using the program strictly for birth control," so no gays are allowed to use it at all unless they lie about their identity, and heterosexual couples who are using the products for something like... fun... aren't allowed as well.
Some free country.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i had an argument along these lines with my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago and she disagreed vehemently, so i fully expect the same, but i'll say it anyways.
i think that all medical rights (and many other rights, but that isn't being discussed here) should be the state's right. each state should be able to independently decide if they want abortion, emergency contraceptives, HPV vaccines, and any other issue, controversial or otherwise, to be legal. if that South Dakota wants abortion to be illegal, fine, move somewhere where it is legal. same with everything else. as long as the federal gov't can't come along and say this or that is legal or illegal across the board. that way, we as individuals have a greater chance of gathering in a group large enough for our opinions to hold sway and enforce our particular beliefs.
i am quite sure that there are many things that make this not as simple as i think it is, and i would love to hear those things. then i can come up with arguments against those things Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well the first argument would be that if you don't like US law, you are free to leave just as easily as switching states.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Well the first argument would be that if you don't like US law, you are free to leave just as easily as switching states.
I honestly don't think it's just as easy as switching states, though.
---
Edited to add: It seems to be verrah, verrah complicated indeed. My spouse (a Canadian citizen) and I (a US citizen) had to hire an immigration lawyer to wind our way through the jumbled mess of getting him able to work in the US, and it looks like we may end up doing the same to get me cleared to work up there.
Nothing even remotely like moving from Indiana to Alabama to Illinois to Wisconsin. A snap, apart from the whole "boxing everything up" and "finding a new mechanic" fiascos. *smile
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Some free country.
*bemused* Considering you're talking about the availability of government aid, it doesn't seem a question of freedom so much as equality.
On a related note: man, the government doesn't pay me to play video games. Some free country.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
in addition to what CT said Stephan, having independent state's rights would not negate the federal gov't's enforcing the constitutional rights, specifically the bill of rights, which in my theory would not be left up to the states. i believe those are important enough to stick around and deal with what i don't agree with.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: i think that all medical rights (and many other rights, but that isn't being discussed here) should be the state's right.
vonk wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: having independent state's rights would not negate the federal gov't's enforcing the constitutional rights, specifically the bill of rights, which in my theory would not be left up to the states.
Wait, no he doesn't.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Apparently it is against the program rules to distribute condoms to gay or heterosexual couples who are not "using the program strictly for birth control," so no gays are allowed to use it at all unless they lie about their identity, and heterosexual couples who are using the products for something like... fun... aren't allowed as well.
Perhaps I am terribly sheltered, but I fail to see how one could use a condom as a sex toy. How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?
-pH
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected.
Why does it have to be universal? I doubt it's universally agreed that women should vote, blacks should vote, people should be allowed to bear arms, or be free in their speech, or from search and seizure or...
Rights aren't rights because they're universally agreed upon. I'm not sure what makes something a "right," but I think you're setting an impossibly high bar.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
re: Post above the post above
Even I, The Claw, cannot touch that one.
*refrains from making any motions whatsoever
*whistles innocently
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Condoms are recommended for oral sex to prevent the spread of disease.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And for anal sex (which is not limited to homosexuals, you know).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
now that does not sound like fun at all. harrumph.
Edit: refering to Stephan's post.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I see a middle ground being to allow it for those underage (a case could be made that it is a health risk anyways), rape, incest, and health to the mother. I honestly think if you are over 18, healthy, and consent to sex, then if nothing else put the kid up for adoption.
But you still think of it as murder, no? It's just that some things are worse than murder?
And to Rien- It's awesome to see you posting!! Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: now that does not sound like fun at all. harrumph.
Edit: refering to Stephan's post.
Yeah, its my belief if you don't know someone well enough to need a condom for oral sex, you need to give a second thought to what your about to do. But to each his own.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: But you still think of it as murder, no? It's just that some things are worse than murder?
Not answering for Stephen, but it may be salient to remember that killing is not always murder.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Even I, The Claw, cannot touch that one.
Have I finally bested The Claw?
But okay, so they can use them for anal sex or oral sex (although...doctor's gloves don't taste good, so I doubt...). It's not like the people from the program are going to stalk them and take pictures and be like, "You had anal sex last night! WE HAVE PROOF!"
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
yeah, thats why i never got the whole 'law agains anal sex' thing. i mean, what is the special ops team that tracks that down?
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected. This is far from universally agreed upon, however. And making it our national law crosses a line, I think, between Church and State, because the government would be legislating one group's religious beliefs for the entire citizenry.
I don't believe this is necessarily a religious issue. I think that there is enough scientific evidence to back a claim that life startes at conception and even more scientific evidence that it starts at the end of the second trimester when there is a good chance that the child would be able to live on its own.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Even I, The Claw, cannot touch that one.
Have I finally bested The Claw?
Darlin', I yielded that game a long time ago. *grin
quote:But okay, so they can use them for anal sex or oral sex (although...doctor's gloves don't taste good, so I doubt...). It's not like the people from the program are going to stalk them and take pictures and be like, "You had anal sex last night! WE HAVE PROOF!"
*nods thoughtfully
Ah. I see you have not spent much time in Indiana. Nobody expects the Indiana Department of Judicial Affairs! Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: yeah, thats why i never got the whole 'law agains anal sex' thing. i mean, what is the special ops team that tracks that down?
I want YOU! To join the Sex Squad! Protect your country from the evils of sex acts that are not vaginal intercourse in the missionary position!
I want there to be one just so that they can have ads on TV.
-pH
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I feel that it is no ones place to say if and when i can have sex and what the consequences of that will be. If there are alternatives available to help reduce the negative effects of sexual conduct, i believe they should be made widely and completely available.
Exactly. We should do away with forcing fathers from having to pay child support. There are many fathers out there who consider that to be a negative side affect of having sex.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
zgator, did you really not understand what i meant or are you just being difficult?
but i'll respond anyways. i don't think fathers should pay child support. i think they should stick around and help the child directly instead of moving away and having their wages garnished.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
Perhaps I am terribly sheltered, but I fail to see how one could use a condom as a sex toy. How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?
-pH [/QB][/QUOTE]It's some weird language that addresses intent. If the "purpose" of the visit is not birth control, it's not okay.
The condoms aren't the only issue. More important is the free STD testing and checkups.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
One side calls itself pro-choice, because choice is good and it wants this to be seen as purely an issue of choice.
It calls the other side anti-choice for the same reason, and ignores the fact that the other side sees more to the issue than choice alone.
The other side calls itself pro-life, because life is good and it wants this to be seen as purely an issue of life.
It calls the other side pro-abortion, because it views abortion as murder, and wants to label the other side as supporting murder.
The pro-lifers are unwilling to concede that they may not have the last word on when life begins, and the pro-choicers are unwilling to concede that they may not have the last word on when life begins.
The extremes on both sides -- those who want to ban abortion under all circumstances and those who want abortion untouchable by law, even for minors, even without informing their parents, even in the last trimester when there's clearly a viable infant involved -- suck.
I have spoken.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i'm not sure that is a fair summation of either of the sides, especially the pro-choicers (but that may be because i am pro-choice)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And that's the point. I bet the pro-lifers wouldn't think I was being fair either.
Vonk, my daughter was born at a day short of 36 weeks. Do you believe, as a pro-choicer, that a woman should be permitted to abort a fetus that developed? Or let's make it more generic. Would you be willing to accept a restriction on abortion that would take the earliest point at which a fetus has ever been born viably and make it murder to abort after that date? With exceptions for fetuses that have no brain or where the mother would be at risk of serious injury or death should the pregnancy proceed?
I'm not trying to trap you. My answer to that question is yes, but beyond that, I don't think anyone has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about a pregnancy. I'm just curious, since you said that you find my summation unfair, whether you'd accept such a restriction. And if not, why not? I'm honestly curious.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
now this is gonna sound like i'm being evasive, and that's because i am. i honestly don't think that i, having a wang between my legs, have any right to say anything about how, when, or why a woman does anything at all with whats between her legs.
now if we were talking about a lady that had my seed growing in her belly, i would take an interest and do all in my verbal power to stop her from having an abortion. but if she really wanted to have it at any time during her pregnancy, i wouldn't stop her. if it were at such a point that i thought that it was barbaric, i would never speak to her again, but i wouldn't stop her.
in conclusion, i would not accept such a restriction, but only because it is not my place to accept or not accept it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
[tangent] Hehe...he said wang. I once heard a cop on that TV show, "Cops" call it a talliwagger. Now that's was a new one for me.
Drunk gets out of car. "Boy, it sure is cold out here Ociffer."
Officer eyeballs him, "That's because your talliwagger is hanging out."
[/tangent]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:a lady that had my seed growing in her belly...
This is quaint. Do you really use such terminology IRL?
Sorry to derail even more, but I was just tickled to read this phrase.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
quote: Ah. I see you have not spent much time in Indiana. Nobody expects the Indiana Department of Judicial Affairs! Brill
Heh
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Pertaining to abortion, here's the thing that I don't understand. If both sides can admit that we don't really know when life begins - then isn't the pro-life position the best one to take? Because if you're not sure, then why not err on the side of life? We proscribe innocence to all accused until they're proven guilty because we err on the side of the accused's rights. Why can't we err on the side of the child's life and say, hey - we don't know for sure, but we do think it's sometime before delivery, so we're going to err on the side of protecting human life and say that fetus has a right to exist.
See, this is why I don't think it's really all about the "When life begins" question. I think it's more about "When does the fetuses' right to life trump the mother's rights to control her own body and choose when she wants to have children?"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I understand that, about that clinic, the STD testing and accessibility of the pill are more important than condom use, but again...how are they going to prove that? I mean, if a gay guy comes in and wants STD testing, are they going to say, "No, we won't test you because your shirt and shoes match too well?"
At my school, they won't give referrals to a gynecologist if they know the referral is solely to obtain birth control because I go to a Jesuit university. But if I go in and say, "I'm getting super bad cramps, and I want to see a gynecologist and find out what can be done about them," it's not like they can hook me up to a Pain-o-Meter and see if I'm telling the truth or follow me to my home and make sure I'm not having the sexy good time.
I just think restrictions like that are silly. I mean, I don't care if the clinic doctor will write me a prescription for birth control or not. The clinic doctor is usually a very creepy man, and I really wouldn't feel comfortable discussing my birth control options with him, anyway. But that's really not the point. The point is, I fail to see what organizations think they're accomplishing by having these restrictions.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?
I've known women for whom pregnancy would trigger a debilitating mental crisis -- suicide would not be out of the question, but long-term living in misery was by far the most likely outcome.
I think our society is not ready to acknowledge that mental health is as important as physical health, and that there are people are not in control of their own mental health.
How much harm to the mother is "acceptable" before she would get to decide for herself whether to abort or not under the "health" exemption?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
By the way, I also oppose abortion.
Hear, hear!
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
I am pro-life and I considered two things withen comming up with my stance on this topic, first life and what it consitutes and second personal choice, because it is something that I feel is very important and should be protected.
First, I feel that life begins at conception and since I feel that human life is precious it should be protected.
Second, I strongly believe that when any person decides they are ready for sex, they are in essence saying they are ready to have a child and THAT is the choice. If they are not ready to have a child they should not be having sex. I am all for birth control and family planning, but it is not 100% effective and that should be made clear to anyone who is taking it. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex and there should not be a choice to get out of it when that person already made the choice to have sex.
For Rape victims, they did not choose to have sex and IF a pregnancy occures they should get to choose whether to carry the child or not. I agree that it is not fair to REQUIRE a rape victim to file a police report, but if they want to get an abortion they are saying that they want to end a life. There needs to be a balance between life and choice and though it is not the best balance, filing a police report is the best way I can think of to strike that balance.
When I think if health of the mother I think of life in jepordy type health. Mental health is very important, but if someone is not ready to accept the consequences of sex they shouldn't be doing it.
I think that there is a major problem in our society today of sex being disasociated from it's puropose through the media. Sex is a fun pastime, sex has no consequences and EVERYONE is doing it. THEN that problem is further compounded by the stigma associated with putting a child up for adoption. The media says have casual sex and if you get pregnant, which is highly unlikely according to the media, the only socially acceptable thing to do is kill the child with an abortion or become a single mother which is a hard choice and will change your life forever, adoption is very hush, hush under the table and seen as the more embarrasing choice (at least that's how I feel it is portrayed, hopefully I'm wrong). If it was made abundantly clear that sex= baby no matter if a contraceptive is used or not and if there was less stigma towards adoption, then I feel the social desire for abortions to be leagal would greatly diminsh.
(Ok, I'm stepping off my soapbox now, sorry.)
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Do you feel that married women for whom a pregnancy could be dangerous should not have sex, then? If such a woman is unable to find a man willing to marry her and not have sex, should she just accept that as her fate?
And I completely agree that adoption should have less of a stigma. Heck, I think that it ought to be okay for married couples who don't want babies to give them up.
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
Hmmm, I hadn't really thought about that senario, but I'm assuming that you are talking about a danger for the woman that isn't going to go away. Perhaps sterilzation is the answer in that case? It would have to be her choice of course, as would the decision to not do it and take on said danger of having sex and becoming pregnant. That said, if a woman is pregnant and her life is in true immediate danger, it should be her decision on whether the pregnancy should continue or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?
Not for me. My views on when abortion should be legal are analogized from the justification defense to homocide, which we would not allow for mental harm.
I realize the analogy is far weaker on the mental health area, because several alternatives, such as leaving the area where the person causing mental distress is, are simply unavailable. Nevertheless, I'm starting from the proposition, "Does circumstance X justify killing this person."
[ March 24, 2006, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This emphasises one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate, and others. There are people who have serious moral and ethical opinions on abortion, who want an open debate on the value of a human fetus versus the value of a womans right to decide what to do with her body.
And they are continually overrun by those who change the debate from Pro-Live vs Pro-Choice to Pro-Sex vs Anti-Sex.
If we could remove the idea that pregnancy is the punishment for promiscuity--whether natural or divine--from this debate, perhaps we could talk to each other.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rien and Dag...and others who would agree with the no mental health exception...
All I have to say is that spending years living around people with major clinical depression has convinced me that the failure to consider the mental state of the mother is a grave mistake.
TX is trying a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub. Examine what her husband's attitudes were and think about her mental state. Tell me not about her options as you see them, but as she saw them.
That man is remarried, in his same church. That woman is going to a life behind bars, or death row. And the children she was basically forced to have are all dead. I don't see justice in this situation.
Dag, why should anyone base their opinion about mental health issues and abortion on a system of laws that allows this kind of injustice in the already existing laws?
Is there any way we can do better?
And let's talk to the children of women who were clinically depressed during their child rearing...
Honestly, I don't think our society is ready to make these decisions FOR people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:TX is trying a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub. Examine what her husband's attitudes were and think about her mental state. Tell me not about her options as you see them, but as she saw them.
Exactly. Do we agree that the option she took shouldn't be legal? Note, this is not asking you to say whether her punishment was just. It's asking you to say whether the law should recognize the event as something it should not allow.
I presume you don't think drowning children in bathtubs should be made legal if the mental health of the mother is at stake. Given my premises, that's the exact same thing.
quote:Dag, why should anyone base their opinion about mental health issues and abortion on a system of laws that allows this kind of injustice in the already existing laws?
When the state allows the use of lethal force, the analysis should start from the perspective of the victim. And there should be a very high threshold for allowing such use of force.
In this case, the victim is in the only place she can survive. The victim has done nothing illegal or immoral to get there. She's simply where nature has ordained that she be.
quote:Is there any way we can do better?
Of course. Allowing homicide as a means to avoid depression isn't "better."
quote:Honestly, I don't think our society is ready to make these decisions FOR people.
The mother shouldn't be making the life or death decision for her child.
I'm honestly puzzled as to the relvance of the the mother drowning her children to what I posted above. That case can illustrate why we need better mental health resources in this country, including depression screening. It can illustrate the need for better premarital counseling. I suppose it could illustrate the need for establishing a spousal duty of mental care or finding a way to be more lenient in such cases. But to justify removing the protection of the law from one child just because that child failed several others? I just don't see it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But see, now you're going beyond the law to your own personal feelings.
quote:That case can illustrate why we need better mental health resources in this country, including depression screening.
And this is the point.
Until we have that, the abortion laws as proposed to date (that lack a mental health exemption) are just adding a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue.
But we tend to pass the laws first, and then adjust them...maybe...when the unintended consequences are found out.
I know you fail to see the relevance. And that's too bad. It doesn't mean the relevance isn't there. It just means that most people, and especially those interested in passing restrictive laws re: abortion, aren't thinking about the unintended consequences of their victory.
I think they should be thinking about it.
If I were trying to pass these laws, the issues of what happens to people who are stuck in bad situations would keep me up at night. Not because the overall saving of infant lives isn't wonderful, but because I was, by that same act, causing some situations to get much, much worse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But see, now you're going beyond the law to your own personal feelings.
Bob, you asked "When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?" I assumed from that you'd want my thoughts on the subject. It's impossible for anyone to answer the question you proposed without relying on their premises for wanting to ban abortion.
If the reason I want to stop abortion is because I view it as homicide, then the only reason I would support a mental health exception is if I thought homicide should be allowed to prevent mental harm. I don't. Most people don't. This is not a radical idea once the starting premise is assumed.
That's not to say we can't have allow mental health to serve as a defense to the crime. But even when we allow mental health to excuse responsibility, we still try to stop homocides caused by mental disorders before they occur.
quote:Until we have that, the abortion laws as proposed to date (that lack a mental health exemption) are just adding a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue.
No, the abortion laws as proposed to date do more than "just add[] a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue." They also save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know you fail to see the relevance. And that's too bad. It doesn't mean the relevance isn't there. It just means that most people, and especially those interested in passing restrictive laws re: abortion, aren't thinking about the unintended consequences of their victory.
I think they should be thinking about it.
If I were trying to pass these laws, the issues of what happens to people who are stuck in bad situations would keep me up at night. Not because the overall saving of infant lives isn't wonderful, but because I was, by that same act, causing some situations to get much, much worse.
BTW, this makes me too angry to respond right now. I'll try to get to it later, but this takes what I said so out of context I'm having a hard time dealing with it right now.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
-pH
I understand its rough to put a woman through that, but a woman NOT filing a police report is immoral. Increases the chances of more women going through what she did.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
ANOTHER example that America is the Home of the Free
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: This emphasises one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate, and others. There are people who have serious moral and ethical opinions on abortion, who want an open debate on the value of a human fetus versus the value of a womans right to decide what to do with her body.
And they are continually overrun by those who change the debate from Pro-Live vs Pro-Choice to Pro-Sex vs Anti-Sex.
If we could remove the idea that pregnancy is the punishment for promiscuity--whether natural or divine--from this debate, perhaps we could talk to each other.
I am not pro-sex or anti-sex and I really would like to have an open debate on abortion, but truely feel that women DO have the right to decide about their body, they have the right to decide whether to have sex or not.
I do not feel that pregnancy is a punishment for promiscuity, it happens much more often in a committed relationship anyway. Pregnancy IS a consequence of sex, and you should not divorce it from the reason it came about. THAT is why women feel that they deserve a choice, because they don't realize that choice came when they decided to have sex. And the reason they don't realize it is because the current culture so often divorces sex from pregnancy already.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Women don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
hahahaha
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:a lady that had my seed growing in her belly...
This is quaint. Do you really use such terminology IRL?
Sorry to derail even more, but I was just tickled to read this phrase.
yeah, i've said that to my girlfriend, but more often we talk about my seed swimming in the pool of her navel.
and all of this pro-life stuff is based on the assumption that life is sacred, right? i don't really think it is. life is only sacred to the people that love the person living. to everyone else, it doesn't really matter all that much. i mean, if i cried for every person that died, well, i'd be dehydrated after a day. many more people die each day (and i mean grown people that realize that they are alive and have people that love them) from any given number of causes that could be prevented (namely war) than from abortion. when i die, i won't care. the assumption here, with pro-life, is that when a living being dies, regardless of mental capacity, it matters. that is an assumption based on religion as far as i can tell. for that reason i feel like not allowing someone to have an abortion is forcing your religion on them.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
How exactly do you get movements like this (and feminist movements and whatnot) without forming a political party? And what is a Lobby?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
it's the big room right inside the front door of a hotel?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I'll pretend I didn't know that. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: life is only sacred to the people that love the person living. ... the assumption here, with pro-life, is that when a living being dies, regardless of mental capacity, it matters. that is an assumption based on religion as far as i can tell. for that reason i feel like not allowing someone to have an abortion is forcing your religion on them.
So, in a general sense, do you think it's fine to kill people who aren't loved by anyone?
I think you're conflating two things. The idea that the value of someone's life is solely a funciton of the value placed on it by individual members of society (vice some inherent value), and the idea that "value" is only a function of love (thus only people who are loved have value). I'd say both are wrong, although I think the first is debatable. But the idea that if someone isn't loved they have no value is absurd.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: now this is gonna sound like i'm being evasive, and that's because i am. i honestly don't think that i, having a wang between my legs, have any right to say anything about how, when, or why a woman does anything at all with whats between her legs.
now if we were talking about a lady that had my seed growing in her belly, i would take an interest and do all in my verbal power to stop her from having an abortion. but if she really wanted to have it at any time during her pregnancy, i wouldn't stop her. if it were at such a point that i thought that it was barbaric, i would never speak to her again, but i wouldn't stop her.
in conclusion, i would not accept such a restriction, but only because it is not my place to accept or not accept it.
See, and that's what I don't get. Because a fetus is not part of a woman's body. It's genetically a distinct individual. I personally don't think that it can be considered human until it develops to a certain stage, and even then, I think that it has a lesser status than a baby that has been born, but once you have a fetus that could live on its own, then I don't think it can anymore be considered "what's between her legs".
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
SenojRetep: Let me try to clarify. I am not saying that the person's life is sacred because someone else loves them, but that those are the only people that the life is sacred to. Let me try to give an incredibly extreme example: If everyone on the planet died, it wouldn't matter at all because there wouldn't be anyone to notice. ie: life only matters if someone else cares. hmm, i don't think that clarified anything at all.
starLisa: "a fetus that could live on its own" - i don't get this. no fetus could live on its own. even brought to full term, it need someone else to help it live. the exception of course being Bean.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: And what is a Lobby?
A lobby is a group of people who attempt to influence lawmakers. They usually have "special interests," meaning that they are focused on a single issue (e.g. keeping abortion legal, banning same-sex marriage, etc.) To be a good lobbiest you must know lots of influential people, have access to lots of money, and not get caught being sleazy.
Here's an article on how to become a lobbiest.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Pertaining to abortion, here's the thing that I don't understand. If both sides can admit that we don't really know when life begins - then isn't the pro-life position the best one to take?
To a certain extent, yes. But I think that as responsible human beings, we have to determine when life begins ourselves. Is a person with no brain activity alive or dead? Is a person with no brain alive or dead? Is a person with brain activity and no heartbeat alive or dead?
These are all things we have to decide, and we have to decide them in a way that isn't akin to a latter-day crusade.
And there's another issue. If the mother's life is in danger, then you have to decide whose live takes precedence. So even if the fetus is a full-fledged human being, you wind up having to decide who lives and who dies. So the question of "alive or not" isn't always enough of a criterion.
In Jewish law, we have a law that says, "if one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him". The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save B is to kill A, you kill A. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
That's what I mean by the two extremes sucking. On the one end of the spectrum, you have people who would try, by force, to prevent Harriet from being saved, all in the name of "life". And on the other end, you have people who would be willing to allow a child as developed as my daughter to have been killed, all in the name of "choice".
Both of those seem absurd to me.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: See, this is why I don't think it's really all about the "When life begins" question. I think it's more about "When does the fetuses' right to life trump the mother's rights to control her own body and choose when she wants to have children?"
Well, I don't think a case can properly be made, outside of religious dogma, that a fetus at 2 weeks is a living person. And I have a problem with using religious concepts to force people in a society like America to do anything at all.
[Edited because I reversed A and B]
[ March 24, 2006, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: ie: life only matters if someone else cares.
My point is that this is different than if someone loves them. I can care what happens to someone without loving them, because their life affects <edit> or even has the potential to affect </edit> mine in some way. I don't "love" my political representatives, but I have an interest in them living because I value the job they do (actually, given my representatives...)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't like abortion. You are killing something that would have lived. I think people need to more responsible about sex. I don't know when life begins, but I do know that all the vital organs are in place by the end of the first trimester. EC doesn't bother me- there's no baby the day after the condom breaks, we can say that can't we? EC needs to be available. Period. You can't prevent people from having sex- you can make some teenagers less likely to have it- but the people in this generation didn't invent sex or sneaking about to have it. They didn't invent abortion nor were they the first people to want them. You can ban safe abortions, but you can't ban coat hangers. I don't like the relgious right telling people what to do with their bodies just as much as I don't like abortions. These abortion laws are made by people who have probably never been in the unwanted baby situtation. I haven't either, but I've read enough stories about it to know that you can't make the decision for other people. If the relgious right wants to tell people how to live their lives, why don't they actually help them out? Instead of picketing Planned Parenthood and slashing tires of abortion counselors, why not use the spare time and lobby money (cheiros- you would pay a lobbiest to pester Congress about a certain issue to convice them that, say, abortion is bad) set up a program for the girls who get pregnant in their town or in their church? If these people regard life so highly, why not offer the right combination of scholarships, and child care that would allow a pregant young person to have her baby and finish high school or college while being able to keep the child. Women want abortions because babies shatter academic futures. They see a baby as something that ruins a life, not as a gift from God. Pro-life people should save lives by making the choice to have the baby seem attractive and actually be feasible.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
ok, so mothers life is in danger, so Mother = B, then Baby = A. so: If Baby is endagering the life of Mother and the only way to save Baby is to kill Mother, you kill Mother.
i don't know how to spell the sound that Scooby Doo makes when he's confused, but you get the idea.
SenojRetep: yeah, i think that line didn't really fit in with my argument. can i just say that i don't think that assigning something or someone "life" is the be all and end all of whether they should exist or not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
I'd be interested in your source for this. What do you consider a significant percentage?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: can i just say that i don't think that assigning something or someone "life" is the be all and end all of whether they should exist or not?
You certainly can. It does break somewhat from the idea that we are all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But then, they're really just guidelines.
Honestly, I probably agree with you. I don't believe all life is sacred. Or, rather, I believe all life is sacred, but being sacred does not imply that its continuance is inviolate. Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bob, if you say that pregnancy can be damaging to a person's mental health, have you considered that abortion may be equally or more damaging?
In your work with clinically depressed people, have you ever talked with a woman dealing with severe post-abortion trauma and depression? Because I have. Not professionally, but as a volunteer in post-abortion ministries.
If a pregnancy can be devastating emotionally to a person, I fail to see how an abortion is going to make things all better. I've yet to meet someone who told me "I regret I had my child." I have met many who deeply regretted their abortions.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I've yet to meet someone who told me "I regret I had my child."
i've never heard anyone say that to me, but i've heard friends tell me about their parents saying it to them. as i recall, it didn't make them feel too hot.
quote:Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
all right, i agree with you there, but only tentatively. i don't think anyone should have to sacrifice their personal happiness and well being so that someone else can live.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Women don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
Men don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: starLisa: "a fetus that could live on its own" - i don't get this. no fetus could live on its own. even brought to full term, it need someone else to help it live. the exception of course being Bean.
Oh, come on. There are people who can't live on their own as well. A two week old fetus cannot in any way, under any circumstances, survive and grow into a human being outside of the womb. A 32 week old fetus can. Hell, a 26 week old fetus can. It happens all the time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
ok, so mothers life is in danger, so Mother = B, then Baby = A. so: If Baby is endagering the life of Mother and the only way to save Baby is to kill Mother, you kill Mother.
Fine, I miswrote it. Tell me you don't know what I meant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
I'd be interested in your source for this. What do you consider a significant percentage?
Hmm... let's see:
2003 Gallup Poll says 18% of Americans polled wouldn't make an exception for the mother's life being in danger.
And yeah, I really do consider 5% of 260 million people to be a considerable number.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you for the sources.
You should be aware that some portion of those 5% almost certainly believe that treatment that results in the death of the child should be permitted. The poll is imprecise in its phraseing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Belle,
There's a huge gulf between wanting to counsel people and wanting to pass laws that could lead to them being charged with murder if they choose to have an abortion.
What I'm saying is that in the rush to pass restrictive laws we should be mindful of the effect on people who might be in precarious situations or mental states.
I personally favor an exemption from restrictions on abortion for mental problems precisely because we have such a poor record of dealing with mental health issues in this country and I do feel as if the laws I've seen proposed so far would not address this issue adequately (if at all). Where's the counseling component? Where's the free or low-cost mental health services? Where's the increase in funding for safe havens for women and girls who need to get out of abusive situations? Heck, where are the sexual abuse prevention programs?
We're very good in this country at setting the punishments, but very bad at offering assistance to the people who really need it.
I, for one, think it's a supremely bad idea to set up people for potential murder charges and not make darn sure first that we have, as a society, reduced the likelihood of people getting into bad situations in the first place, or in finding themselves stuck once they are in a bad situation.
I know there are those who will argue that there are "plenty" of social services out there. I think the facts are otherwise. And, more to the point, I suspect that the people who discount the need for social services are doing so because they don't have good answers to THOSE problems and don't want to have to deal with them first, or in conjunction with putting all the restrictions in place.
Because it makes it too difficult, too costly, or requires us to acknowledge how colosally screwed up our society is with respect to mental health issues and sexual abuse -- especially abuse by spouses, people in authority, or family friends (essentially anything BUT abuse perpetrated by strangers -- a pitifully small percentage of the overall problem).
By the way, I don't see this as just involving the issue of abortion. This society is frequently finding itself paying the price for rapidly going for the punitive law and thinking that we've implemented a real solution.
We're great at devising the punishments in this country. We suck at recognizing the possible problems or reasonable solutions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
starLisa, I agree with your conclusions but I think your principle
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B.
can't be correct as it stands.
After all, what if I'm endangering your life not intentionally, but by carrying some kind of deadly disease that might infect you? Should I then be killed (supposing there's no other way to isolate me)?
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Women don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
Men don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
While people may realize it, they don't think about it often or only after the fact, if at all unless they are TRYING to concieve. And I believe that the majority of the population feels that if they are using birth control pregnancy is certainly not going to happen to THEM.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: [QUOTE] Pro-life people should save lives by making the choice to have the baby seem attractive and actually be feasible
I completely agree! Adoption should be pushed as a viable, attractive alternative. I plan on doing all I can to promote it. My parents took in an unwed mother who whas giving up her child for adoption for her pregnancy when I was a child. I remember it as a very positive thing and would like to do something like that in the future.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, rather, I believe all life is sacred, but being sacred does not imply that its continuance is inviolate. Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
I agree, it is not as if there is never, ever a reason for abortion, but it should not be elective based on personal or social convienence and the government should be able to uphold that. It is the government's job to protect it's future citizens that is why there are so many laws in place pertaining to children. And if a parent cannot or will not care for their child it is taken away as soon as possible, but the parent is responsible for any abuse or death that occures before the child can be taken. Just like if someone finds them self with an unwanted pregnancy they must care for the child and be responsible for it until the state can take it.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: don't think anyone should have to sacrifice their personal happiness and well being so that someone else can live.
So, if someone who decided they wanted a child, but when it got here felt it was too much, not what they expected, and become deeply depressed then they should be allowed, by law to kill that child? Do you really think that would make the person feel better anyway?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
are those the only choices? to either be unhappy or kill the child? i don't think so. i think another choice would be to let someone else raise the child. or to stop the child from ever existing in the first place (and i do not think that is the same thing as killing)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: starLisa, I agree with your conclusions but I think your principle
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B.
can't be correct as it stands.
After all, what if I'm endangering your life not intentionally, but by carrying some kind of deadly disease that might infect you? Should I then be killed (supposing there's no other way to isolate me)?
We're talking about a direct danger. If you have Ebola and won't stay at a safe distance, I believe I'm morally justified in shooting you dead, if that's what I need to do to keep you back.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If you have Ebola and won't stay at a safe distance, I believe I'm morally justified in shooting you dead, if that's what I need to do to keep you back.
But again, sounds like it's intentional on my part. What if we're locked in a cell together?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
-pH
I understand its rough to put a woman through that, but a woman NOT filing a police report is immoral. Increases the chances of more women going through what she did.
Woooooow. So you advocate, what....guilting and shaming women into reporting rape?
Yeah, that sounds like an awesome idea.
I just...I really, really can't get too far into this subject because it upsets me to no end.
It's ridiculously cruel to attempt to FORCE a woman to file a police report for sexual assault and then perhaps have to go through a trial, among any other number of things. And calling it "immoral" that she might choose not to do so is...quite frankly, disgusting to me.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Especially since Planned Parenthood is only open Monday-Friday.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I recall people being critical of others who did not bring up standards when it was in reference to a poster with whom they generally agreed, so ...![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)