FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Alabama Abortion clinic shut down - horrible story (Page 7)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Alabama Abortion clinic shut down - horrible story
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dag, are you being deliberately snarky? If you fail to see that no-one is really getting their way here, I think you've lost some perspective.
What the hell is snarky about asking where the compromise is? I'll ask again, since you didn't answer: one side wants abortion illegal throughout pregnancy except to prevent physical harm. One side wants it legal throughout pregnancy. It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy - a limitation that stops zero abortions. Where, exactly, has each side given up something they wanted?

I think you've lost perspective. The issue is government prohibition or allowance of abortion. The people who want it allowed throughout pregnancy have what they want. The people who want it banned have nothing. That's not a compromise (that is, "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions"). What concessions are in effect that limit abortion? Essentially none. The fact that people who want abortion available on demand don't have everything they want does not mean they've compromised on the central issue. They've won on the central issue.

quote:
This is not what pro-choice people envisioned as th ideal? As we've said, nobody wants to put women in jeopardy for having this procedure. But it has come to pass that in many places that is exactly what happens.
And this jeopardy isn't based on a compromise over whether abortion is legal. The government intervened to stop the shoddy medical procedures - something everyone agrees is good, right?

quote:
I called it a defacto compromise. Nobody is happy with the way things are now. It is clearly unsatisfactory.
Please. That's not a compromise. What twinky proposed is a compromise. Abortion on demand throughout pregnancy is not.

quote:
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the criminal thing, but again, your tone would indicate that you had some point to make about criminalizing abortion as the desired end state.
No. What I'm getting at is that almost everyone agrees that the principle goal of criminal law is the protection of people from private violence and coercion. This is as close to a universal statement as one can make about criminal law.

quote:
I was talking about a consensus opinion arrived at through dialog and some serious consideration of what would be better than the defacto compromise that we do have now -- the one I still assert is making nobody really happy.
You can't get that consensus. I'm sorry. But a very large number of people believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. They will not form a consensus that fails to recognize that and treat it accordingly, although they will make compromises (which haven't been made yet) if they can't achieve the just goal of banning this killing.

Sure, no one is happy with what we have now. That doesn't mean that we're going to be happy with some other situation that subjects a million or so children to death each year.

This so-called "maturation" of the debate you advocate is an end of the debate, and for you to present it as otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. Your contention that right now we are in a state of compromise is equally disingenuous. I can't tell at this point if that's intentional or not, but removing the issue that's actually under dispute from consideration is not an advancement of the dialog.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
But lots of things carry a cause and effect naturaly, and we act as we choose to to mitigate the results.

Lots of things have human DNA, so the fact that fetuses do doesn't sell me on the pro-life position either.

Nature killed most people long before their 60th birthday not that many yeras ago, but we changed that. Sex, consensual or not, use to hold women hostage to their own biology...and it still does today, although not to the same extent.


Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.

A lot of pro-life people have strong religious reasons OTHER than the sancitity of human life that lead them to believe that abortion is wrong. It is not s conicidence that a lot of the same people who complain about abortion are the same people who castigate the sexual revolution.


Not all pro-life people have these views, but it has been my personal expreience that most to the people who are pro-life are more interested in what their neighbor is doing behind closed doors than most, more conderned abou who is sleeping with who so to speak.


IMO, neither abortion OR other peoples sex life is any of their business.


I don't feel like anyone is really listening, or learning anything at this point, so I am done. I have my own views, and I didn't find them in a Cracker Jack's box...and I know that there are plenty of good people on BOTH sides of this debate.

I am just tired of talking about it yet again.


Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.


Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.


You are smarter than that.


Kwea

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea,

Putting aside your statements about society mitigating outcomes of cause-and-effect situations (we don't, really, protect adult individuals from the outcome of their voluntary leisure activities except to help them AFTER the fact)...

quote:
Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.

It's pleasant to be labeled a closet bigot, a prude, someone who is more concerned with keeping women down than in protecting (hypothetical) defenseless victims.

What, because there was hypocrisy in the past about sexuality means it still inspires and motivates related beliefs today? How wonderful! Then of course the enlightened liberal woman-friendly perspective is of course equally dependant on past hypocrisies, correct?

Or rather it would be, but that side of things isn't so...misogynistic.

Abortion is related to the sex lives of others, but the discussion about it is not about their sex lives, as much as you would like to claim it is. Clearly you are not the one who is listening because if you were, you'd have long since realized that the one thing which unites pro-lifers is their concern that true human lives are being exterminated, largely for the sake of convenience.

Whether or not many pro-choicers also have beef with the sexual choices of those who get abortions is irrelevant, except when they try and do things like restrict access to sexual education and protections.

You are the one who isn't listening. It isn't surprising, then, that you're tired of talking about it yet again. Maybe when you're rested up, you can imply more things about pro-lifers. I do so look forward to hearing more about that.

Dagonee has not said that abortions are to be found at the local 7-11, darnit. He has said that they aren't restricted, in all but a few cases right at the very end of pregnancy (excuse me, hostage-situation). This is not a compromise because it is not pro-lifers causing this to happen. More abortion clinics could be opened, and the law would not stop that from happening except for zoning laws or somesuch.

So once again, you weren't listening. If you were, you would have known Dagonee did not insist that there hasn't been a compromise because abortions (pardon me, hostage-rescue) can sometimes be difficult to get and consequence-ridden.

Aren't you smarter than that?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.

A lot of pro-life people have strong religious reasons OTHER than the sancitity of human life that lead them to believe that abortion is wrong. It is not s conicidence that a lot of the same people who complain about abortion are the same people who castigate the sexual revolution.

It's easy to sideline abortion as a "religious issue", and call it's morality flawed. It's also easy to assign motivations to a group of people, and say that because some of them have ulterior motives, their entire case is flawed. The debate should be about the issue itself, IMHO. For example, criminals can help tremendously in the conviction of other criminals, and in doing so, shorten their own sentence. Does that make those convictions any less good for society?
quote:
Not all pro-life people have these views, but it has been my personal expreience that most to the people who are pro-life are more interested in what their neighbor is doing behind closed doors than most, more conderned abou who is sleeping with who so to speak.


I'm glad you didn't include everybody, but what point does this make?

quote:
Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.


Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.

That is the decision of the individuals in those states who build and run abortion clinics. It doesn't constitute a legal compromise, because the law is still 100% on your side
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Mental harm is just as problematic as physical harm, in many cases...mental harm can lead to physical harm.

And I don't think anyone thinks that abortion should be legal through the entire pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
OK...I didn't label anyone a bigot, or a religious fanatic. I did mention that a lot of the "you play, you pay" argument, which HAS been used in this very thread, is based on morality that is rooted in the old sexual stereotypes of the Church.

Also, I have met people on BOTH sides of this argument who seem far less concerned with any life as they are "proving" the other side wrong, or themselves right. Not all, not even most, but there is no one underlying principal that unites "all" of us on any side of this argument. Some people have a purely religious objection, some dislike the cottage industry of abortions they feel has arisen; some don't know what they think for sure, but feel this is to error on the side of caution.

Some think anyone who has an abortion, for any reason, is a murderer.


I was also QUITE clear that not everyone on the pro-life side of the argument is that way, just like everyone on the pro-choice side isn't an uncaring child-murder. Some probably are, but most of us have very real concerns about the right to live ones life as one sees fit, regardless of others religious views and affiliation.

Put your opinion in quotes, italics, or boldface, it doesn't make any more of a difference to me. I completely understand your point of view, even if you refuse to acknowledge ANY sort of validity of mine. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand, you know.


It is possible for two reasonable, moral, rational, fairly intelligent people to have widely varying opinions on this. It doesn't mean one of them is a monster, or an idiot.


Your statements label you a close minded bigot, not any post of mine. I can at least admit that I don't know everything, and see the points others make even if I don't agree with them, or place the same amount of value on them.


Also, it IS the decision of individuals to target and harass abortion clinics, forcing providers out of business with death threats and mail bombs. Many, many clinics have been targeted this way on a regular basis, and it just goes to show that a good amount of abortion opponents only care about the law when it is in their favor.


I don't see any pro-choice people running around forcing pro-life people to have involuntary abortions, but I have seen violence done to pregnant women seeking abortions, committed my people who claim to be Christians.


quote:
Whether or not many pro-choicers also have beef with the sexual choices of those who get abortions is irrelevant, except when they try and do things like restrict access to sexual education and protections.

It is anything BUT irrelevant, when the SAME "morality" is what leads to the "you play, you pay" argument...in other words, the argument that their real choice should have been to not have sex at all, a point that was made more than once in this very thread. The same people who blockade abortion clinics are the ones who repeat the "play/pay" argument over and over again, and fight a lot of other family planning methods. It is a sly way of expressing disaproval of others lifestyle choices, claiming some sort of moral superiority over them.

Once again, not ALL oppose both, but a significant amount of them do.


quote:
Clearly you are not the one who is listening because if you were, you'd have long since realized that the one thing which unites pro-lifers is their concern that true human lives are being exterminated, largely for the sake of convenience.
Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?

Abortion isn't a convenience, nor is it taken lightly by the majority of women I know who have considered it. A lot of this argument is EXACTLY a moral argument, where the sides argue about sexual activity and the possible consequences of it.

It is one side sticking their noses into another persons business, which is why it is a right to privacy issue.


I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few. Not that those are the only ones, of that one side has a monopoly on them, but those are the ones I have noticed just in this thread.


Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.

I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.


pH, on the other side of this I HAVE heard some people say ALL abortions should be legal, and do wish them to be at every 7-11. Not many, but it isn't the only time I have heard the suggestion.

(smart ass comment about intelligence deleted in a vain attempt to maintain some sort of civility)

[ May 26, 2006, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea,

quote:
OK...I didn't label anyone a bigot, or a religious fanatic.
Then why bring it up at all? Just to point out that the pro-life movement is founded in 'outdated morality'? Don't make me laugh. If I'm in a conversation with someone and out of the blue I told them, "You know, quite a lot of people who think similar to you are idiots...not YOU...just people who think like you," which is essentially what you said, I would not expect them to take me at face value, either.

The 'you play, you pay' argument is secondary, but you spent quite a substantial piece of your post talking about them (not you, pro-lifers here on Hatrack, but those OTHER pro-lifers). Even for the people who really are as spiteful about it as you suggest, 'you play, you pay' argument is not their FIRST reason for opposing abortion. Whatever you may have learned from, you know, reading their minds notwithstanding.

quote:
I completely understand your point of view, even if you refuse to acknowledge ANY sort of validity of mine. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand, you know.
On the contrary, you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument. I say, "We aren't sure they're true human lives," and your response is either, "According to the law they aren't," or just, "They aren't, so it's none of your business." Ii acknowledge that if you are correct, that fetuses aren't true human lives then there isn't anything immoral about abortion. You choose to ignore the uncertainty about that, however. To brush it aside.

quote:
Your statements label you a close minded bigot, not any post of mine. I can at least admit that I don't know everything, and see the points others make even if I don't agree with them, or place the same amount of value on them.

It's interesting that to criticize you is to be equivalent to a closed minded bigot (rather redundant, come to think of it). That must make your moral world very comfortable indeed. I am not bigoted towards pro-choicers at all, certainly not to the extent you are towards pro-lifers since you spend a good deal of time focusing on the most fanatic and backwards of them.

All I've ever asked is for someone to explain to me how we can learn if fetuses are true human lives, or not. Or when. To date, that question has not been answered satisfactorily to me. I wish it could be proven, and that the time was late in pregnancy indeed. That would make things much simpler, and mean that far fewer human deaths had occurred. I would welcome being proven wrong about my uncertainty. I would be grateful.

quote:
Also, it IS the decision of individuals to target and harass abortion clinics, forcing providers out of business with death threats and mail bombs. Many, many clinics have been targeted this way on a regular basis, and it just goes to show that a good amount of abortion opponents only care about the law when it is in their favor.
A serious problem, it's true. But the number of abortions going on annually in the USA is quite high. Do you have any actual data on how many abortion clinics would be open were it not for fanatic terrorist activities? Or any speculation besides the pulled-from-posterior variety?

It goes to show that PEOPLE-especially fanatics-only care about the law when it's in their favor. Because you know there ARE fanatics on both sides. We can both agree on THAT, at least. What do fanatics do, generally? Well, they stir up trouble and violence and hatred. Why do you suppose the pro-choice fanatics aren't doing that?

Could it be because the law favors them overwhelmingly in terms of abortion at the present time? I suppose this is back to your unspoken but hinted-at belief that at least the pro-choice fanatics aren't quite as much backwards yokels as the pro-life fanatics.

quote:
It is anything BUT irrelevant, when the SAME "morality" is what leads to the "you play, you pay" argument...in other words, the argument that their real choice should have been to not have sex at all, a point that was made more than once in this very thread. The same people who blockade abortion clinics are the ones who repeat the "play/pay" argument over and over again, and fight a lot of other family planning methods. It is a sly way of expressing disaproval of others lifestyle choices, claiming some sort of moral superiority over them.
It was irrelevant to Dagonee's point, which was that there is not a 'compromise' right now. A vast number of legal abortions go on yearly in the USA, pro-life wishes to the contrary. Someone please twist that FACT into something that is a compromise, I look forward to it.

I think if you review this thread, abstinence is one of the OPTIONS frequently mentioned to avoid pregnancy. It is not harped on over and over again as the thing that should have been done. Despite some people in fact believing it.

It's not very sly, such people do believe their morality is superior. As you believe about yours. You've got a beam in your eye on this, buddy. It's abundantly clear from your latest two posts that you think your morality is superior to your opposition's.

quote:
Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?
In what way isn't it a matter of convenience for the majority of abortions? 'Convenience' has a connotation of light matters, but it still applies...because if it were a seriously important matter that the couple took seriously, the chances of there being an abortion are vanishingly small.

Or are you going to assert that most abortions aren't done because one or both of the couple 'aren't ready' 'can't afford it' 'haven't lived my life yet' etc. etc. etc. They all boil down to convenience: having a child right now would wreck my life as I know it, and I am unwilling to do that. If it's so important, then why not avoid the potential for killing a true human life and exercise a little self-restraint? I'm not even talking about abstinence!

quote:
One side wants it legal throughout pregnancy. It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy - a limitation that stops zero abortions.

Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?

Abortion isn't a convenience, nor is it taken lightly by the majority of women I know who have considered it. A lot of this argument is EXACTLY a moral argument, where the sides argue about sexual activity and the possible consequences of it.

It is one side sticking their noses into another persons business, which is why it is a right to privacy issue.


I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few. Not that those are the only ones, of that one side has a monopoly on them, but those are the ones I have noticed just in this thread.


Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.

I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.

Where, exactly, did he imply it was easy across the board? Which even if it IS difficult in places, STILL does not invalidate his point which you seized on while going on a rant against pro-life bigots.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
(smart ass comment about intelligence deleted in a vain attempt to maintain some sort of civilit)
Are you kidding me with this? A fine example of sarcasm indeed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.


Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.


You are smarter than that.

quote:
Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.

I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.

You read it again. You've said this twice. Please quote my language where I said "abortion is easy for anyone to get." Or even where I imply it.

Evidently you think this is so obvious that it warrants your little "You are smarter than that" response. I am smarter than that, and that's why I didn't say any such thing.

The only place you can make a case for it is where I used the phrase "abortion on demand," which was done in the context of a post about the difference between availability and legality as relates to the existence of a compromise. Since my use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is followed by an acknowledgment that those who want it "don't have everything they want," the implication that I intended to say they were available everywhere is weak if it exists at all.

It's certainly not clear enough to maintain your claim that "Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board."

quote:
[A] lot of the "you play, you pay" argument, which HAS been used in this very thread, is based on morality that is rooted in the old sexual stereotypes of the Church.
No, it's rooted in some of the oldest traditions of common law concerning when a person has a private right to kill. Certain situations create a legal justification for deadly force. A person whose actions contribute to the existence of such a situation has legal justification to kill than a person whose actions do not contribute to the danger. The difference can be between total mitigation and murder.

It's a moral principle that's been ingrained in our law for at least 5 centuries.

You keep claiming you understand the other side, but it's clear you don't. You badly misunderstand my post as claiming that abortion is easy to get across the board. Now your reading your little agenda into attempts to remind people of the simple biological fact that sex leads to pregnancy.

There are two principle reason others are bringing "you pay you play." First, because they are attempting to integrate this existing principle, reflected in our laws, into the laws governing abortion. Second, in response to some rather shrill comments about birth control not being 100% effective so what can we do about people who don't want to be pregnant.

In the first instance, it's an integration of moral principle into a proposed law. In the second, it's a response to someone insisting that she be allowed to avoid one of the know consequences of engaging in sex.

quote:
I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few.
Then perhaps you should stop making other people's hidden agendas up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry Dag,

I read a lot of anger into your post. I still see it. Must just be me, eh?

I only have one answer to your latest: there are different types of compromise. What we have now is the bad kind. The kind where nobody talked it through. Whoever could get the upper hand for a period of time pushed through what they could, while those with less power for a time used "tactics" to get their way.

As a result we have a situation that is neither fish nor fowl.

If you'd rather use a different term than compromise, I'm fine with that. If you were trying to imply that pro-choice people have what they wanted and expected in a country with legal abortion, I'd have to disagree.

Maybe we should just call the current situation a "mess" and leave it at that.


quote:

This so-called "maturation" of the debate you advocate is an end of the debate, and for you to present it as otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. Your contention that right now we are in a state of compromise is equally disingenuous. I can't tell at this point if that's intentional or not, but removing the issue that's actually under dispute from consideration is not an advancement of the dialog.

And yet you would consider twinky's compromise???

I think you're proving my point.

I think it's a bad idea for any of the sides in this debate to present themselves as having decided to be intractable. Don't you?

I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now. I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
And, of course, my point was merely that they are alive and have human DNA. It's not like you can claim that they are dead, lifeless or inanimate. So, if they are alive, and came from a human, they are part of the human reproductive cycle.

I mean, really, I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, I just don't see the discontinuity of life that would allow anyone to claim that something is NOT alive, and then it is, with respect to human reproduction. Or reproduction of ANY living thing on this planet for that matter.

But, Bob, the whole point is that there *is* a distinct point of discontinuity where an individual begins-- when the gametes combine there is a distinct point at which you have an empirically definable human entity that did not exist prior to that point-- which is *not* merely a part of the the father *or* a part of the mother. Equating the gametes to the zygote is a factually incorrect method of sliding past that discontinuity.

[ May 26, 2006, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.

I have never made an argument that descends from this idea. Ever.

Nor have I seen one put forth on hatrack except as a straw man by a pro-choice person.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
On a re-read, Kwea, it is staggering the number of words you are putting into people's mouths. Yes, we *are* smarter than that. Please treat us as such by addressing our real points instead of your nosy neighbors and invented comments supposedly made by Dagonee.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
Maybe we should just call the current situation a "mess" and leave it at that.

I think you should have [Smile]

quote:

I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now. I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.

Bob, I believe Dagonee's point is that there is no "method" we use now. There are arguments about periods of gestation because pro-choice people keep wanting to know when it's a real human being and they want evidence beyond what has been presented. Pro-life people tend to draw the line at conception-- gestational arguments are totally secondary. You are setting up a straw man by saying that pro-life arguments rest on gestation.

Anbd the reason he's angry is you aren't listening to him. You accused him of being snarky, but he's exactly right-- you said there was a "compromise" when what you meant was there is a "mess" -- the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion. As Dagonee points out, the article which launched this debate is sufficient to show why that's a bad idea. That there are issues with safety and availibility regardless of the law is not remotely like a compromise between the two positions, more like an issue in the implementation of one position.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Jim-Me:

My call to view life as continuous was specifically addressed to those of us who are pro-choice. I was recommending a change from the "X weeks of gestation = human" argument that did indeed come from the pro-choice side.

Also, I'll wait for Dag to tell me why (and if) he's angry. Unless you are an alt-persona for him.

Maybe you're angry because I used the wrong word. So, fine...change the word "compromise" to "it's a mess."

I'm not that wedded to the idea of calling it a compromise. Dag tends to focus on stuff that I consider minutia and doesn't tell me what he thinks of my main point. I can deal with it, but it took him several posts to tell me he doesn't like the perspective I posted -- he instead picked on my word choice. And yes, he WAS snarky about it. At least he was snarkier about it than my word choice warranted.

I've said several times here that I'm not trying to put forward a strong position and instead of dialog on that position, I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.

Ugh.

I'm not that concerned with whether we call the current situation a compromise.

That was A VERY MINOR part of the post.

Dag does this a lot -- picks on small stuff and doesn't answer the bigger point.

I know he's got this thing about precise use of language, but that's just not something I can do much about. I said it wrong. Fine. So now it's corrected to say something else.

I have learned, a bit, to be more precise in my use of language, but I don't have a legal background and sometimes the terms just mean different things to different people. Meh. I sometimes think Dag and I are doomed to go through this every few weeks. Sometimes I think it helps me learn to be more precise.

Most of the time, it's just frustrating.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And yet you would consider twinky's compromise???
I think you're proving my point.

I would not consider twinky's compromise as a final resolution. I consider it to be a compromise between total availability and no availability (and before starLisa jumps in with her accusations again, I'm STILL not talking about banning it when the mother's life or health is in physical danger). I would vote for it right now (assuming I couldn't vote for what I really want), but I would make it clear that I would still work for a more complete ban.

quote:
I think it's a bad idea for any of the sides in this debate to present themselves as having decided to be intractable. Don't you?
I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now.

I have at least as many problems with the viability cutoff (which is the current legal representation of gestation time) as you do.

As for intractability, some principles are not to be compromised. "Separate but equal" was a compromise which turned out to be untenable. The NAACP brought hundreds of separate but equal lawsuits before attempting to attack the precedent directly, but they never compromised the underlying principle.

I am not intractable as far as discussing what policies will be implemented. I am basically intractable at this point (after 22 years of deep thought and consideration on the subject) with regard to what policies I consider just and moral.

quote:
I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.
Yet the alternative you propose simply declares the central issue to not be part of the debate. That's not better.

quote:
the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion.
To be fair, very few people actually want this. Which is another reason I don't consider the current state of things a compromise at all - the current legal situation is more permissive than many pro-choice people want.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Dag,

That made a lot of sense.

And while I too would vote for something like twinky's compromise, I would work very hard to stop it from going any further toward an outright ban.

And I would work hard for a sensible mental health exception.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dag tends to focus on stuff that I consider minutia and doesn't tell me what he thinks of my main point.
It's not a small thing. It's a huge thing - the starting point. If someone honestly thinks that the current legal resolution represents a compromise, then there are basic differences that must be resolved before any further productive discussion can occur. Especially when the further discussion would involve discussing a major transformation of the debate - a "maturation" even.

quote:
Dag does this a lot -- picks on small stuff and doesn't answer the bigger point.
It's pointless to discuss whether a new proposed framework for discussion is more mature than the current framework if the two participants don't agree on what the current framework is.

quote:
I know he's got this thing about precise use of language, but that's just not something I can do much about.
It's not about precision, as your first response to my question shows. Nor did you consider it a minute point yesterday. You felt the point so important and seemingly so obvious that you commented on my perspective when I asked a question based on my understanding of the word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Dagonee,

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Please quote my language where I said "abortion is easy for anyone to get." Or even where I imply it.

I've only skimmed this page of the thread, but on the last page, I did take this:

quote:
As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health.
To imply that abortions are easily (if not readily) obtainable. I think it's your use of the word "merely" that makes it parse that way for me. I don't know if that was your intention -- from what you've said on this page, what I've read of it, it doesn't seem that way. I'm just letting you know how I read it.

I think this part of the debate, at least, comes back to something Jim-Me said much earlier on -- the "safe, legal, and rare" thing. He's right in that at the moment, of those three, in the U.S. it's only legal, not safe or rare. I think it's the "unsafe" part, combined with inconsistent availability, that is leading Bob to say that the pro-choice camp is not having its way in a manner as unfettered as you're arguing. I do agree that in the U.S., pro-choice advocates have at least some (if not most) of what they want, while pro-life advocates have essentially none of what they want.

------------------

Jim,

To address your point from the previous page, I think I misled you with poor choice of phrasing.

quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
I think one of the strongest arguments for the pro-life side is that it *is* erring on the side of caution. So refusing to accept erring on the side of caution because it will lead to adopting the pro-life stance seems funny to me.

I may have misused "the pro-life argument" in the post you're referencing; I meant it to be loosely synonymous with the belief that human life of the sort entitled to legal protections begins at conception. I do think that "erring on the side of caution" would foster that belief, and I'm not certain that I would like to see that occur.

------------------

Bob,

Dagonee never said he would consider my compromise, he just said that it would be a compromise.

------------------

To that point, Rakeesh, Jim-Me, Dagonee, Toad, I have a question: To what extent would you accept a compromise along the lines of what I proposed about a page ago? I'll try to give it a bit more detail.

(1) Morning-after pills would be readily available. Parental permission or knowledge would not be required. (I'd be inclined to have it stocked "behind the counter," so to speak, but only if availability could be guaranteed.)

(2) Other very early-term abortive techniques would be available with the consent of parents, two physicians (one of whom being the physician doing the abortion), and one licensed mental health professional. (My knowledge of abortive techniques at this developmental stage is limited. Where exactly the line gets drawn here is the fuzzy part of the equation, of course, as CT has said far more eloquently than I ever could. Loosely, I would say foetal "awareness" would be where I think the line should be drawn -- similarly, I felt strongly that Michael Schiavo did the right thing. Doctors and lawyers from both "sides" of the debate would have to determine where to draw the legal line, somehow.)

(3) Mid-term and late-term abortions would be illegal, but would not be considered homicide; they would receive their own special criminal category separate from homicide. ("Murder" is a loaded word and I don't much like the notion of millions of women trying to come to grips with the thought that the law thinks they "murdered their babies." The social fallout from illegalized mid-to-late-term abortion -- Puppy's "heroin addict" -- would be widespread enough without adding homicide to the mix.)

Is that a workable starting point for an compromise that could see the light of day?

Added: Er, I guess I spent too long fleshing this post out. Ignore the bits at the beginning that are no longer relevant. [Razz]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd get behind twinky's proposal, which is, as far as I can tell:

1) Ready availability of the morning after pill;
2) Accessible early-term abortions
3) Mid-term to late-term abortions banned.

It's a compromise.

Religiously, I'm NOT kosher with it. Religiously, IMO, there's no difference between willfully destroying a spirit that's been in existence for 9 seconds and one that's been in existence for 9 months.

But it's an encouraging start.

EDIT: [Big Grin] Twinky and I posted at the same time.

Twinky, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable prosecuting women/doctors that performed abortions. I think, for doctors, they should be disbarred (if there is such a thing), but jail time, or fines? I don't know...

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
Jim-Me:

My call to view life as continuous was specifically addressed to those of us who are pro-choice. I was recommending a change from the "X weeks of gestation = human" argument that did indeed come from the pro-choice side.

Which is why the first time I responded to it (which was before irregardless) I just said it was a technical point. It just became of point of contention later and I was trying to clarify it.

quote:
Also, I'll wait for Dag to tell me why (and if) he's angry. Unless you are an alt-persona for him.
That's certainly the correct thing to do. I thought it would be obvious that I was offering my opinion.

quote:
Maybe you're angry because I used the wrong word. So, fine...change the word "compromise" to "it's a mess."
Oh, I'm not angry. You only need to look at the front page of thei thread to see how my posting style turns when I'm angry. We're cool, I think?


quote:
I've said several times here that I'm not trying to put forward a strong position and instead of dialog on that position, I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.
I'll let Dagonee address this (and the rest), in deference to your earlier comments [Smile]
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion.
To be fair, very few people actually want this. Which is another reason I don't consider the current state of things a compromise at all - the current legal situation is more permissive than many pro-choice people want.
Agreed. I think it'd be an unecessary tangent at this point to try explaining what I meant by that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.
BTW, this is why "precision" becomes important. I never said that "pro-choice people [don't] have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation" and, in fact, explicitly acknowledged in my second post on the subject that they don't have everything they want.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
My question before endorsing twinky's compromise is about where early term ends and mid term begins. I would want to be sure that people would have plenty of time to know they're pregnant. . . I have a highly variable cycle, for example, and it's not unusualy for me to menstruate every 3 weeks, and it's not unusual for it to be 6 weeks. For a person with a longer cycle who didn't have morning sicknes, I think it's reasonable that they wouldn't realize they had a birth control failure until they were 6 - 8 weeks pregnant. As long as the law is such that that person would still have time to review their options and make a decision, then I would vote for it. And, of course, work very hard to stop it from going any further, and to make sure that legal abortions are safely and widely available, preferably in hospitals instead of stand-alone clinics, both because of quality of care issues and because it would be harder to harass women on their way in.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Twinky, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable prosecuting women/doctors that performed abortions. I think, for doctors, they should be disbarred (if there is such a thing), but jail time, or fines? I don't know...
I'm not sure either, but if it's going to be banned, there has to be some kind of consequence for the physician. I'm [even less sure] about the woman (or couple).

Added: On reviewing my proposal, there's one fairly obvious thing that I would like to add to it, which is comprehensive, universal sex education. Preferably with no opting out. Watching farm animals get it on would be optional. [Wink]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
I do agree that in the U.S., pro-choice advocates have at least some (if not most) of what they want, while pro-life advocates have essentially none of what they want.

I wish one of us had said that sooner, because I think it's a statement of the present situation we can all agree on. Good on ya'.


To your question, I would definitely prefer your compromise to what we have now (with the, I think, obvious additions that late-term abortions to protect the mother should be allowable and that RU486 should require a prescription). A key point, however, is the need for parental involvement to have medical procedures performed. To me, personally, that is a huge issue. Edit to add: I also like the physician concurrance and especially the involvement of an LPC.

I would not, however, be satisfied enough to stop trying to move things further towards the pro-life side.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Eljay, I assumed that the word 'term' was synonymous with 'trimester.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.

I have never made an argument that descends from this idea. Ever.

Nor have I seen one put forth on hatrack except as a straw man by a pro-choice person.

I never said you had, Jim. I could post a comments or three here in this very thread that refer to it thhough, even if they don't spell it out. And those type of comments are regular, not rare as claimed. I could pull dozens of similar comments from multiple abortion discussiona here at
Hatrack.


Dag, I did think you were smart enough to know abortions weree not candy, offered at every drugstore. That was why I was confused as to what you meant.

You do like precise language, and whether you meant to or not your posts came across as implying abortion was easy as pie to get, pretty much everywhere, for any reason. If that wasn't your intention, I am sorry, but I went back and reread those posts and it still reads that way to me.


I should have done what I said, stayed out of this thread. It was late, and I came across far more snarky than I intended. I don't recant what I said, but I wish I had been able to phrase it better, I guess.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not putting words into anyones elses mouth at all. Dag, if that isn't what you were implying then you weren't very clear at all. I think the word "merely" refers to that quite evedently.


I do thin that a lot of the foundation of the pro-life stance is based on a need to dictate codes of behavior regarding sexuality. It isn't a secondary issue all the time, and it was mentioned, or refered to obliquly, in this thread more than once. I strongly idsagree with this idea, even though in my own life I have followed most of those ideas quite closly.


My actual view of abortion, from a personal viewpoint, is actualy quite close to what most pro-life people believe.


But that doesn't mean I feel I have any right to forcfully remove options, no matter how distasteful, from other people. It would interfere with their lives far too much, and isn't my place.


Abortion is a life chnaging, mindbending, alteration, and to label it a "mere convience" (yes I know I an conbigning the two arguments there) is exactaly the attitude I am talking about...the attitude that someone else has the right to lebel your decisions and force a course of action upon you.


I went through pains to say multiple times that not all people on either side of this issue knowingly hold these views, and most people are not extremeists. OTHER people said I had called them names, or labeled them, so I was not the first person to place words in someones mouth.

And I had originaly posted something quite rude and inflammatory at the end of that post...I removed it because it wasn't nice, and didn't have any point other than to express my frustration. I left the comment I did because I hate it when someone edits their post and leaves no trace of it, particularily when they were in the worng saying something. It makes anyone who comments on it after the post look like an idiot.


It wasn't sarcasm...sarcasm is what I removed because it was counterpoductive and rude.


I should have left it in, I would fit in better. [Frown]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, and ElJay: As I noted, the medical and legal location of the "line" would have to be determined by doctors and lawyers. My guess is that it would loosely correspond with trimesters, but that's just a layman's speculation. I left that one intentionally fuzzy, in CT's terms, because I'm not a doctor, lawyer, or, most importantly, a woman. [Smile]

Jim, prescription RU486 makes sense to me (at least offhand) given the approximately 1 in 200,000 fatality rate from its abortive use. I also agree with you about parental knowledge of medical procedures, at least in this case. I do think it's very important to my proposal that Plan B not require a prescription, a physician's consent, or parental consent, though.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am not putting words into anyones elses mouth at all. Dag, if that isn't what you were implying then you weren't very clear at all. I think the word "merely" refers to that quite evedently.
"Merely" was referring to the legal justification needed. Nothing more. Before telling the "people" to read what I wrote, make sure you read the whole context. Especially when the follow up post made this explicit: "It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy."

You had access to that post when you told "people" to read what I wrote. I commend to you your own advice.

quote:
But that doesn't mean I feel I have any right to forcfully remove options, no matter how distasteful, from other people. It would interfere with their lives far too much, and isn't my place.
You do feel you have the right to forcefully remove "options" from other people. For example, you strongly feel that the law should forcefully remove a bar patron's option to lift your pool cue. You just happen to think that abortion is one of the options you don't have the right to remove. What separates the two situations for you are your conceptions of the rights of the victim in each case.

Twinky, I need time to gather my thoughts on your compromise, although you already have my basic position on it from my reply to Bob.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
I know you specified it. I'm just saying that if the doctors and lawyers came up with the wrong answer (read: not mine) for that particular location than I would not support this plan. [Razz]
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
Plan B not require a prescription, a physician's consent, or parental consent, though.

Ok... I have a feeling I'm gonna look awfully stupid here, but what was "Plan B" again?

Edit: yes, I am stupid. sorry about that.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
The morning after pill.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
The "morning-after" pill. I think that for my compromise to work it has to be readily available, preferably for free, with no questions asked. Here's a Wikipedia link with some general information.

Added: D'oh, brevity wins.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry for brain death. May I ask why you feel it's essential to avoid a prescription?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tristan
Member
Member # 1670

 - posted      Profile for Tristan   Email Tristan         Edit/Delete Post 
If we are to draft a system that allow early abortions I think it is necessary to draw the line so as the ensure that a) the woman has a reasonable window in which to discover she is pregnant and b) a reasonable time during which to come to a decision, discuss it with all concerned parties (be it partner, parents and/or councellor) and schedule an appointment. How about eight weeks for a) given the concerns about irregular periods, etc., that ElJay pointed out above plus an additional two weeks for b)?

Ten weeks total?

Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Sorry for brain death. May I ask why you feel it's essential to avoid a prescription?

It's pretty difficult to get a prescription for something without going to the emergency room on weekends. And Planned Parenthood is closed. And doctors are expensive anyway, if you don't have health insurance.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irregardless
Member
Member # 8529

 - posted      Profile for Irregardless   Email Irregardless         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
I think that for my compromise to work it has to be readily available, preferably for free

Who's going to pay for it? If you tax pro-life people to fund what they regard as murder, that's not much of a compromise. Maybe pro-choice people could form a charitable fund to make this available.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Who's going to pay for the increased need for social services for all those unwanted babies, Irregardless?

While you're right on the surface-- I don't want my tax money being used for abortions of any type-- some compromise is necessary. I *think* I could stomach paying for these services IF Twinky's plan of outlawing mid to late term abortions were implemented.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm... how about "Plan B pills readily and freely availible at rape crisis centers, college health clinics, and anywhere or way you could get conventional birth control pills." I know that's not what you guys are looking for but something about this bothers me regarding the drug aspect of this. The use of the pill itself, as I understand it, is effectively "insta-IUD", correct?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Well law-abiding pacifists still pay taxes for the military, and some of my money goes to fund art that I probably think is a waste, and still more goes to pet projects like building a multi-million dollar bridge to a remote town in Alaska, so I don't particularly find that argument convincing, Irregardless.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Hmmm... how about "Plan B pills readily and freely availible at rape crisis centers, college health clinics, and anywhere or way you could get conventional birth control pills." I know that's not what you guys are looking for but something about this bothers me regarding the drug aspect of this. The use of the pill itself, as I understand it, is effectively "insta-IUD", correct?

None of which are open on weekends, and Plan B is more effective the closer it's taken to unprotected sex.

It's my understanding that Plan B primarily prevents ovulation, but if ovulation and and fertilization do occur, it may prevent implantation.

EDIT: I found a link.

quote:
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
-pH
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irregardless
Member
Member # 8529

 - posted      Profile for Irregardless   Email Irregardless         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
Well law-abiding pacifists still pay taxes for the military

Well, that's kind of the point. I doubt those pacifists regard it as a good 'compromise.'

quote:
and some of my money goes to fund art that I probably think is a waste, and still more goes to pet projects like building a multi-million dollar bridge to a remote town in Alaska, so I don't particularly find that argument convincing, Irregardless.
I fail to see how the existence of certain abuses justifies the imposition of additional ones.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
pH basically gave my reasons, Jim. Plan B and other such drugs have a 72-hour window during which it may not be possible to get a prescription.

Irregardless, I have to say that I'm not particularly concerned about who pays, provided the availability is there. If it can't be non-pay because of your country's health care system, make the cost as low as possible. Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Some do, some don't. Honestly, those that don't are likely the types for whom no compromise is possible. In which case they are truly dividers of our national society, not uniters (or makers, if you prefer). I sympathize with the position many pro-lifers feel themselves to be in (the analogy to "separate but equal"), btw, but this issue is not black-and-white to many people, and that needs to be traken into account when a solution is devised, even if you disagree with that view.

-Bok

EDIT: Also, your argument leaves us in the relatively absurd (though not unsupported by some) position of leaving the government completely toothless, since it would be not be able to fund most things (I'm thinking, in particular, the highway systems... How many non-eastern MA residents would have funded the Big Dig if they could have helped it?).

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irregardless
Member
Member # 8529

 - posted      Profile for Irregardless   Email Irregardless         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.

Noted. They're the same mechanisms as with standard birth control pills, but surely ovulation is quite a bit more likely to have already occurred with 'plan B.'
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.

Noted. They're the same mechanisms as with standard birth control pills, but surely ovulation is quite a bit more likely to have already occurred with 'plan B.'
Well, it's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is relatively small, but I'm not sure.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
The thing is, without Plan B being easily and free or cheaply available, what's in this compromise for pro-choice advocates? Like Dagonee said, abortion is legal now. I'm will to restrict that legality somewhat, by giving up mid and late term abortions. But not if everything else is going to stay the same. In order for it to be a compromise, the other side has to give a little, too.

My preference would be for that compromise to include increased sex ed and easy and cheap or free birth control as well as easy and cheap or free Plan B. I would much prefer people were using birth control than Plan B. Easier on your body, less stress, and less likelyhood of screwing it up. But for people who are using condoms as their primary method and the condom breaks, they need to be able to get Plan B on weekends and after hours.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
by "rape crisis center" I meant "place where rape victims can go in the immediate wake of a rape." I certainly hope they are open 24-7, even if it's only in the emergency room of the local hospital.

I understand the concept of the 72 hour window... I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? Again, my issue here is more of making a heretofore prescription drug completely availible. I don't know that progestin is any more dangerous than ibuprofen, but it *is* currently a prescription drug in the United States and asking someone to take a really bare modicum of caution with respect to sexual involvement seems like a better solution than changing a prescription drug into a non-prescription one.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2