Kansas "bans" abortions by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Some people still like DT, Niki, and still think he makes valid points. As I implied before a weak link in citations or data does not discredit an argument in it's entire.

I am not entirely thrilled that he is gone. But then, I'm not entirely thrilled by all of the things he has said recently either.

I'd ditto that.

Quote:

In any case, I guess that's it on the DT front, and there's no longer any reason for me to defend him. If you wanted to discuss abortion without interruption, this might be your opportunity.

It's not that we "wanted to discuss without interruption", so much as we want to discuss with valid information.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Some people still like DT, Niki, and still think he makes valid points. As I implied before a weak link in citations or data does not discredit an argument in it's entire.

I am not entirely thrilled that he is gone. But then, I'm not entirely thrilled by all of the things he has said recently either.

In any case, if you wanted to discuss abortion without interruption, this might be your opportunity.

Yeah, it would be terrible if someone interrupted their discussion by disagreeing with them.

Yeah, I got called a "dick" and a "numbskull" for having the temerity and gall to disagree with DT's unsupported claims.

Quote:

Y'all don't have to like what DT says, but ya don't have to hound through multiple threads, putting more effort into discrediting his contributions out of hand than even attempting to understand his perspective either. But why put effort into understanding your opponent when you can write their positions for them and argue on your own terms?

I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.

I see a lot of that going around. Some of it even comes from the right.

Here's the thing: If you've got a position, stake it out and defend it. If you can't, you don't have a position worth having, and the more you whine about people being mean to you about it, the worse you make it for yourself. Screaming "I'm right, you're wrong!" really isn't a valid debating tactic, despite what Rappy might think.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 4:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HAPPY Glad I caught you in a good mood, then!

Quote:
Shiny. I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the topic, but I'm in a pretty good mood and I don't mind sharing right now.

I'm guessing you meant to ask higher profits vs fewer deaths, in which case I would be in favor of fewer deaths. Aside from ideological reasons, I don't understand how higher death can equate to higher profit without the quality of the operation/product/venture being significantly degraded.

It's just that I noticed when people say Human life is sacred they are often the very same people who are willing to trade off human life for something else... "collateral damage", "enhanced interrogation", "justice", "productivity", and so forth.

When one thinks about abortion, if the fetus is considered "human life" from conception, what is this human life being traded for? Quality of life for the mother, or sometimes the life or health of the mother. Those who say that is a bad trade but are still willing to trade human life for other purposes really don't believe that human life is sacred, they just don't want women in control of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:08 PM

Interesting perspective. I perhaps have not had traumas, but I have been inborn with various crippling defects of mind. When I was treated for them, I do not believe I was myself, and am glad I am back to the bitter, miserable, and hateful person I always was.

I feel as though I lost years of my life, just because the people who knew me wanted to spare me from the pain I felt.

This comment was only meant in regards to emotional pain, as I said before, not physical suffering. I don't apply the same standard to something like abortion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 6:13 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Happy on basically everything here. So there's no need to reitterate. I like preventative controception and think that post fertilization controception (eliminaception?) isn't our place. Like Happy I agree that sex education is a good thing since parents now adays don't bother teaching their kids anything so they need to learn somewhere what to do if they're going to rut in order to prevent pregnancy.

DT: My question (which is a little beyond abortion) is do you eat meat? If you oppose killing things, even cutting down trees, then how do you get food? Just wondering. Other than that I can agree with a good chunk of what you say upon the abortion matter because I value human life, especially since we don't know what that person will grow up to be and we need to give them the chance. And yes, I think we can all agree that foxes are really cute.

A question: Some of the people here, especially Niki, are very passionate about animal rights and treating animals humanely. I want to know why there is so much outcry when animals are killt but you guys don't care if a baby is aborted and even think its totally okay. I mean, sure its wrong to kill animals in a cruel way that induces suffering, but those animals are never going to end up sentient and change the world. If you abort a child you don't know what they could have grown up to become, they could have become the next Bach or Edison or Einstein, or they could grow up to cure cancer, you don't know, they could be the next MLK or JFK. I agree its wrong to kill sleddogs after the Olympics because no one wants them, but I believe its worse to kill people because one person doesn't want them. Just saying.

Magon's, do you really believe that when a person is born they aren't necessarily alive yet? If so then when are they alive? When _you say they are?

I'm a concrete thinker, its just the way my brain works so I'm a big fan of cut offs etc. because they make things clear and thus one knows what to do accordingly. That's how I think, I've always been that way, though as always happens I tend to appreciate gray areas more as I age.

Byte, how about this: Jayne and Saffron inexplicably find themselves locked in a closet and River is the only one who has the keys and Simon can't figure out how to persuade her to hand them over, or use them to unlock the closet. Mal and Inara are having a heated argument in the next room and Kaylee and Wash can't figure out what happened to that compression coyle this time. :)

I have to agree with PR about emotional pain, it rutting hurts and I like minimizing it as much as possible for myself. I'm not going to toot PR's horn like so many other people do, at least not until someone toots my horn, but she is more reasonable to discuss abortion with than others of her opinion on this board.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 6:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, the discussion at hand seems to have devolved a bit - but just for clarity, what I was calling the dude out on was his conduct, not his personhood, and I wouldn't have done that if I felt it was pointless to do so and stood not chance of making someone rethink their behavior, cause in that case I just make fun of em.
But whatever - I done said my piece on that front.

PR and Byte bring up the interesting point of how our "pain" serves to define and develop us as a person, which is, as stated, somewhat paradoxical indeed, as Matthew Stover puts it in the Caine books - "We are all the sum of our scars"
James Kirk also makes a good stab at that argument here.

That's not to say we shouldn't avoid needless tragic experiences, learning from our own mistakes and those of others - teaching that knowledge to future generations, but in a sense, Utopia would kinda suck, cause no one would ever learn anything - SOME negative effect is, I think, key to the learning process.

In respect to the notion that we wouldn't be who we are without it - well, I ain't exactly the happy-cheerful kinda fellow, but I like to think that with a different set of life experiences, I might have been.
Which is kinda ironic in that my ex's fiance *is* closer to that, he's got the Dark Spark, in potential at least, but has never faced the horrors required to ignite it - and he *IS* a much happier, much more decent, person than I am - but given a choice, the me who is now would NOT choose to be the me that coulda-been.
We are who we are....
And I think, BECAUSE of that, is why we wish to spare others such a fate.
If that makes any sense to you.

And although we seem to have radically deviated from the original topic, I would still like to see an answer to the questions I asked, cause I think they matter more than the minutae of the argument itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So lemme ask you this - exactly WHO would be helped, by the actions being taken here ?
That's not rhetorical, I really do want an answer to that question - WHO benefits from these actions ?

That's the question I think we SHOULD have been asking from the get-go.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 7:03 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
some people have beliefs which would prevent termination ever being an option as far as they are concerned, and that is their choice. Their CHOICE. It is not their RIGHT to prevent others from doing so.

I just think this bears repeating. I missed it earlier.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This comment was only meant in regards to emotional pain, as I said before, not physical suffering.

I know, I was just using more overtly physical models as an analogy. Discussion of broken limbs is far more accessible to the general population than discussion of the impact events can have on neurotransmitter gene functions and sensitivity to future stimuli.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I'm not going to toot PR's horn like so many other people do, at least not until someone toots my horn, but she is more reasonable to discuss abortion with than others of her opinion on this board.

Thanks...I think? You seem to be simultaneously denying and giving kudos, here, I'm not sure what to think of it. Anyway...
As you say you are a concrete thinker who likes cutoff points, I would be interested in what you think of my own cutoff point of life being viable once it can survive outside the environment of the womb. In my way of thinking, until it reaches that potential, potential is all it has, making it not so different from the myriad of ova I've mentioned that I have prevented from becoming a 'life' of their own. All of them could have, but none of them did. I exerted my choices and available options to see to that. Basically, until a life is viable... well, it isn't viable. Miscarriages and menstruations aren't considered lives in need of mourning and funerals and tearing of hair. Right? Maybe they are by some people. In a concrete way, though? Is life in potentia equivalent to a viable being, able to breathe the air and digest foods? Is there not a fairly distinct line there?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's not to say we shouldn't avoid needless tragic experiences, learning from our own mistakes and those of others - teaching that knowledge to future generations, but in a sense, Utopia would kinda suck, cause no one would ever learn anything - SOME negative effect is, I think, key to the learning process.

I do use the term 'limit suffering' for a reason. If my meaning was that I thought it should be eliminated entirely, that's what I would have said. Negative consequence is a powerful instructor, it's just when it gets into endless feedback loops or halts someone in their tracks rather than motivating them, or simply becomes akin to hammering in a nail with a sledgehammer that I would say, "Yeah, that's wholey unnecessary and harmful."

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 8:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
hammering in a nail with a sledgehammer...

But.. but.. but..
That's my WHOLE M.O. right there, innit ?

10lbs good, 20lbs better, right ?

-Frem
* cause we needed some humor, here!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 8:48 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Phoenix, I can indeed give and deny coodos here if I so desire, I can do both in one sentence if I want. I was giving coodos to you for discussing in a fashion I consider to be more rational than others of your position (note that my opinion of rationality differs somewhat from others and I know that) but you get plenty of people overtly telling you that you are amazing/phenominal/whatever so I see no reason to add to it at this present juncture. You are a person and I value your opinion just as much as that of any other person that I don't know personally but chat with online.

As for when life begins being when it can survive outside the womb, I think that's especially tought to identify since our technology is making it so babies who wouldn't have survived before are able to survive now adays. Plus one could (if they were mean) make the argument that even newborns can't "survive" on their own, humans basically have very few inate instincts, so how far are you you willing to take the defining of survival? Note the pedanticness in this response, I'm being obstinant intentionally.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

Magon's, do you really believe that when a person is born they aren't necessarily alive yet? If so then when are they alive? When _you say they are?

No, I believe a person is definitely alive at birth. Did I say otherwise?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,

sorry, my post got deleted. My position is probably the majority american position:

1) Abortion should be avoided when possible

2) When circumstances, such as the mother's health, require it, the best possible care should be available.

3) controversial techniques such as EC, or chemical abortion as birth control, which critics claim lead to high casualty and sterilization rates should be avoided unless the situation shows them to be safer than surgical abortion

4) groups tied to questionable organizations and with dubious histories relating to racist policies and eugenics should be restricted from performing "medical services" which would help them fulfill a racist agenda.

You wouldn't allow the KKK to run a clinic in a black neighborhood, so why would you let PP? The latter has stated the extermination of blacks as a goal and has ties to the NSDAP.

As early as 1920, Marie Stokes founded "controlled parenthood" with partner Margaret Sanger, and again by Sanger when she started what would become the American counterpart, "Planned Parenthood" the following year. Both stated very early on their intent to remove blacks and non-germanic europeans, particularly slavs, from the gene pool. Still, today, this is balance of abortion activity by their international networks.

Selective population control is a very suspect agenda. I personally do not trust the WHO at all, given the HIV infection rate at WHO operations in Africa and the former USSR vastly exceeding all other medical malpractice HIV infections, and would prefer that this be kept within the purview of local hospitals to avoid any untoward agenda.

Personally, the number of times these programs were have been dodged by my ancestors just in order that I exist today counts at least three occasions. I like existing, so I oppose the groups and agendas that did their level best to prevent me from existing. That doesn't seem like an illogical position. I also oppose their racist agenda in general.

Ha ha. It's a miracle any of us exist given the unlikely nature of a sperm actually implanting into an egg and then surviving long enough to be a human. Whether we like the thought or not, millions more potentials humans have not existed than have, and thank god for that. Frankly, there are plenty enough of us out there.

I take your other points however. I find your eugenics argument quite 'out there' but apart from that, probably we're not disagreeing on a hell of a lot. Personally, I think that society should accept that from time to time some women want to end pregnancies and will find a way to do it. Best its does as safely as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

THT

So, I'm going to ask you a version of the same question for the third time -

if laws were passed making the following things illegal and where the violation of those laws would be subject to life in prison, which laws would you support and which would you oppose

laws making it illegal to engage in wars of choice
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
laws making it illegal to impose the death penalty
laws making it illegal to engage in personal self defense
laws making it illegal to engage in defense of others
laws making it illegal to make a profit if it directly or indirectly leads to death
laws making it illegal to medically neglect a person regardless of their ability to pay or condition

As I promised, I am now going to point out why this is on topic AND snark-free.

This directly relates to clarifying what you mean when you post that your value human for life is the basis for your objection to abortion. Whose life do you value? What would you trade off for it? (ie what do you value more than life) By asking these questions I'm hoping to find where your value for human life ends - if indeed it does - and your value for other things begins.

As I have not even begun to comment on you personally there is not even the smallest amount of snark.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

DT is remembering the Starfield figures for US iatrogenic death, which is what I linked. Unless there was a thread that went by me, that is what he's referencing. For whatever reason, even tho the report is 11 years old, it suddenly and fairly recently became "new"s in the media. (THAT was a sleeper! It took a decade for the media to catch up with it.). There are a couple of problems with what he remembers - it was the AMA that owned the high figure, the figure was 225,000 in the US, and it was the UN that owned the low figure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:51 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
THT

So, I'm going to ask you a version of the same question for the third time -

if laws were passed making the following things illegal and where the violation of those laws would be subject to life in prison, which laws would you support and which would you oppose

laws making it illegal to engage in wars of choice
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
laws making it illegal to impose the death penalty
laws making it illegal to engage in personal self defense
laws making it illegal to engage in defense of others
laws making it illegal to make a profit if it directly or indirectly leads to death
laws making it illegal to medically neglect a person regardless of their ability to pay or condition

You aren't giving me a lot of flexibility here. The only applicable punishment is life in prison and you're asking for a 'yes' or 'no' to cover a broad range of possibilities in each prospective law.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

If you want my opinion on any one of those areas, I can share, but I'm not going to answer 'yes' or 'no' to loaded questions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 1:55 AM

Quote:
Magon's, do you really believe that when a person is born they aren't necessarily alive yet? If so then when are they alive? When _you say they are?

Or when *YOU* - or some state legislatures - say they are? The very second a sperm implants into an egg?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

Magon's, do you really believe that when a person is born they aren't necessarily alive yet? If so then when are they alive? When _you say they are?

No, I believe a person is definitely alive at birth. Did I say otherwise?

I think she's got you mixed up with me - I argued not that a person is not ALIVE at birth, but that UP UNTIL THEY ARE BORN, they are not a "citizen" of the United States, and therefore they have no inherent rights that we bestow upon United States citizens until they are actually, physically born into this country.

That's a finding completely in keeping with the current thinking by the conservatives, the federalists, and the constitutionalists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
THT

So, I'm going to ask you a version of the same question for the third time -

if laws were passed making the following things illegal and where the violation of those laws would be subject to life in prison, which laws would you support and which would you oppose

laws making it illegal to engage in wars of choice
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
laws making it illegal to impose the death penalty
laws making it illegal to engage in personal self defense
laws making it illegal to engage in defense of others
laws making it illegal to make a profit if it directly or indirectly leads to death
laws making it illegal to medically neglect a person regardless of their ability to pay or condition

You aren't giving me a lot of flexibility here. The only applicable punishment is life in prison and you're asking for a 'yes' or 'no' to cover a broad range of possibilities in each prospective law.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

If you want my opinion on any one of those areas, I can share, but I'm not going to answer 'yes' or 'no' to loaded questions.

It's not really a trap. Given the current state of many states with regards to abortion and miscarriage, it's a very real, very concrete question that has to be answered, and the answers can mean the difference between life in prison and freedom.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 4:48 AM

Quote:
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of choice
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
laws making it illegal to impose the death penalty
laws making it illegal to engage in personal self defense
laws making it illegal to engage in defense of others
laws making it illegal to make a profit if it directly or indirectly leads to death
laws making it illegal to medically neglect a person regardless of their ability to pay or condition

Hmm. Good question. Some of those are easy, and some are very tricky.

I like to think that I value life, but at the same time I have this concept that people should be able to fight for their lives, quality of life, and livelyhood if necessary. It is a tragedy of a sort if even a would-be murderer or rapist is killed in self-defense, as even they might have family or redeeming qualities, but I also think it's a worse tragedy if the innocent victim is killed simply because they can't fight back, and no one else around them is willing to take on that responsibility. So I would say "no" to all the self-defense points.

Obviously the best possible solution is if people were trained in self-defense, as it would greatly reduce deaths caused by self-defense. And there's also some ground between valid self-defense and murder by overreaction. Perhaps it could be argued that self-defense is only valid if it can be proven the death was accidental.

Similarly, people should be able to defend themselves against people who would invade and/or oppress. So no to the self-defense war as well.

I'm not sure exactly what constitutes war by choice. Wars between nations I'm generally against because they're idiotic and have more to do with lining rich pockets than self-defense. And then there's the event where the victor goes all French Revolution on the losers. I would like to say make those illegal, but I'm not sure who would enforce it. And I'm also not sure if civil wars qualify as a war of choice, because I think there could be valid reasons for a civil war, such as in some of the fascist nations in the early previous century.

Keep in mind that I don't like war, and would like to see war ended. I'm merely proposing there might be a better way to end them than making them illegal. I'd also argue that if someone were really smart, they'd figure out a way to remove oppression without causing killing on either side. I'm only saying no here because of the possibility it might be unwise to limit those options.

The death penalty, profit for death, and neglect are straightforward. Those should probably be illegal. Any good and decent system that can self-sustain and is worth keeping around should be able to address those problems without collapsing itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:27 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I don't dislike DT; I dislike only that he posts things that are so "out there" and doesn't back them up. Many arguments can be made without cites, but those that go so against the grain of logic need to be substantiated, in my opinion. If he said "I believe" or "it's my opinion", I would have no problem with it, but he states everything as flat fact, and sometimes even says "as everyone knows", and as far as I know, ALWAYS refuses to provide anywhere we can find facts to decide for ourselves. That bothers me a lot, but there's a major difference between disliking what a person DOES and disliking the person themselves. I think it's great that we have been able to move on and discuss the issue reasonably among ourselves; I'd have no problem with DT being part of the discussion, if he could be civil and would defend his position in a reasonable manner.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:28 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
It's just that I noticed when people say Human life is sacred they are often the very same people who are willing to trade off human life for something else... "collateral damage", "enhanced interrogation", "justice", "productivity", and so forth.

When one thinks about abortion, if the fetus is considered "human life" from conception, what is this human life being traded for? Quality of life for the mother, or sometimes the life or health of the mother. Those who say that is a bad trade but are still willing to trade human life for other purposes really don't believe that human life is sacred, they just don't want women in control of it.

Oh, Sig, that's beautiful. I hadn't thought of it in all those terms, only the "justice" one. Very valid point, thank you. Ooo, and how about all the babies dying daily overseas? Or even the children dying here? If they want to make it TRULY respecting all life, why focus so viciously on people who believe in choice, to the point of KILLING doctors and clinic workers? Why aren't all those pro-lifers out there helping the already-born? That's not even trading off, that's ignoring the already-existing human beings whose lives, they say, are so sacred.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, Riona, when did I EVER say I either didn't care if a baby was aborted or thought it was okay??? If I've been misunderstood, my stance is that I think abortion is awful, I wish nobody ever had to have one, but I, like JS, recognize that it exists, always has existed through time, will always exist, and given that, I think having it legal is the best we can do, I accept it. I also accept that it isn't my business to tell someone else what they are allowed to do with their body. Is that clear enough? Given, as I said, my mom had a back-alley abortion way back when it WAS illegal, and it screwed her up badly, I don't see that as a viable alternative.

I would LOVE for there to be better sex education, and any other way we can avoid unwanted pregnancy, but I don't see THAT happening any time soon in some places, either. Sig just made a really good point about that; I've always wondered why people who are so "energetically" against abortion aren't nearly as vociferous (or sometimes aren't at ALL) about war and the death penalty. I know the argument for the death penalty, that those people had their chance and killed someone else, but I've never bought it. If ALL LIFE IS SACRED, so should theirs be. Why are pro-lifers apparently quite willing to let our soldiers who return from war slip through the cracks, be "cared for" in hospitals worse than the vast majority of veterinary hospitals, don't adopt themselves, etc., etc.? Can you explain that to me? It's not a black-and-white issue; I come down on pro-life AND pro-choice, but will fight to the death over a woman's right TO choose.

Another question: What is your alternative, if you have one? There will always be abortions; you want them to go back to my mom's day? I SAW the pain she suffered; I wouldn't do that to anyone.

Okay, animal rights. As I've said before, the only meat I eat is chicken and the occasional hamburger (oh, and a couple of times a year, ham on pizza), and I wouldn't eat those if I didn't hate vegetables so much. But I eat NO other met; I tried tofu, can't stand it. My husband IS a fish-and-chicken-only vegetarian, I'd like to be, but I'm too weak-willed to go all the way, so I settled for a middle ground.

I also don't think it's most often "because they don't want them" when women have abortions. Sure, there's that, but I think the vast majority are women in situations where they feel they CAN'T carry or support a child. I've also been in favor of ZPG since I was a teenager; I've never had children myself and never intended to, nor has Paula. WE could have produced that JFK or someone who would save the world, so I don't see that as a valid argument.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, also a good point, in my opinion. When there's an issue, one of the best things to do is to wonder exactly that: Who benefits? From the battle, I mean, not the abortion. I happen to think that it IS a wedge issue in that it's been, once again, brought to the forefront and made such a contentious one, and that there are those who are quite willing to make laws to FORCE a woman not to be able to have an abortion. To me, that's playing to the base in many cases, it's getting people riled up about an issue so that they don't pay attention to other issues. It IS something very serious which I think people should think about and decide where they stand, but killing people over it? Making laws to get around the law of the land; creating situations where poor women can't GET an abortion; passing laws where a woman HAS to sit and be lectured, complete with graphic pictures, on why she SHOULDN'T have one, is wrong, to me. Why not put that energy AND MONEY into the children who HAVE been born, is my question.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rose, I missed that too, and it's a very good point:

Quote:
some people have beliefs which would prevent termination ever being an option as far as they are concerned, and that is their choice. Their CHOICE. It is not their RIGHT to prevent others from doing so.

It IS also about rights, for me. To tell someone "I don't care how you got pregnant, I don't care if it endangers your life; you MUST carry that child to term!" is 100% wrong, in my opinion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons, as to DT's

Quote:
Selective population control is a very suspect agenda

Is it or is it not "selective population control" to make abortion illegal, or impossible for some segments of the population? I believe it is. Those who can afford birth control, those rich enough to travel where they can get an abortion, are a population separate from those who cannot; if that's not selective population control, I don't know what IS.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:52 AM

Niki: Fair enough.

As for vegetarianism, I'm a full-on vegan. Personally, I'm not overly fond of tofu either, I only use it for a few deserts, and for scrambled "eggs," and sometimes diced in a stir fry.

Instead, I more subsist on organic burritos and fake meats made out of wheat gluten. There's some breaded gluten "chicken" patties that I get that are pretty good, they make great sandwiches or parmigiana. And I found some decent cheese substitutes (tofutti is pretty good) and even some vegan marshmellows because I likes me some summer s'mores.

I've been having to try to figure out where to get some vitamin b12 though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 6:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of choice
laws making it illegal to engage in wars of self defense (on home territory or at the borders)
laws making it illegal to impose the death penalty
laws making it illegal to engage in personal self defense
laws making it illegal to engage in defense of others
laws making it illegal to make a profit if it directly or indirectly leads to death
laws making it illegal to medically neglect a person regardless of their ability to pay or condition

No, to all of them.
Life isn't black and white, it's all in shades of grey - or, more accurately, represented in all the glorious colors of the rainbow, so getting into a brawl over whether a certain color is Maroon or Burgundy doesn't change the fact that it's a kinda-reddish shade, nor does it strike me as an effective way to address a problem.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 9:33 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Might be a little late in the thread for me to be weighing in on things, but my girlfriend and I were discussing this some, so this caught my eye. She's a biologist, and so she has her particular perspective on what life is. Her point was, essentially, that every time someone scratches their nose they kill off thousands of 'living' things comparable in size to an embryo, and no one bawls about that. She often hears cries of, "But it's different!" and gets very frustrated trying to explain why it is in essence the very same thing. Life is all around us, and what is or isn't considered "sacred" about that life seems quite open to emotional interpretation.

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Contraception and abortion do not in forever destroy the potential for life, because that potential is far too massive to destroy without something destroying or damaging the organs themselves.

This is a good point that I think many people don't consider. Particularly when saying that a child 'could be the next' whatever big thing. Any of those, as you say, potential lives could be a great many things, and there are fortunately plenty where they came from.

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
not about some "elite" group and eugenics, it's about RIGHTS to decide for oneself about one's life and body.

Yeah, I'm a little lost on the whole eugenics thing. Since forced sterilization does seem to have gone out of fashion (it used to be very common in the mentally ill) and slaughter of another race is frowned upon, offering the option of not having children seems very... not eugenics. That's all I can really say on that matter.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I just don't consider abortion being prevention like I do contraceptives. Still, I think most of us on either side can agree that abortions are certainly not preferable.

No, I don't think anyone would argue that they're preferable. And it's not like any woman decides one day that she's going to get pregnant and then abort because she thinks that'll be really super fun. However, as stated repeatedly, if it's a decision that must be made for various and sundry reasons, best if there's a clinic with clean tools available.

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
some people have beliefs which would prevent termination ever being an option as far as they are concerned, and that is their choice. Their CHOICE. It is not their RIGHT to prevent others from doing so.

I just think this bears repeating.

I think it bears repeating again. I always liked the stance of, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." It's fairly straightforward.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I can indeed give and deny coodos here if I so desire, I can do both in one sentence if I want. I was giving coodos to you for discussing in a fashion I consider to be more rational than others of your position (note that my opinion of rationality differs somewhat from others and I know that) but you get plenty of people overtly telling you that you are amazing/phenominal/whatever so I see no reason to add to it at this present juncture.

Course you can. It comes off as a little passive-agressively hostile to go out of your way to point out how much you're not going to toot anyone's horn, though. Rose is a smart lady and a lot of people, myself among them, agree with her and think she makes good arguments. To explicitly say that you aren't going to say you think she makes good arguments, because other people have done so, is an odd approach in my estimation. Kind of backhanded towards, as you say, one of the most reasonable people here.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I've been having to try to figure out where to get some vitamin b12 though.

There are many supplements available for that, in various forms. Shots are the most efficient, but there are also dissolvable tablets that can go under the tongue, and more traditional tablets you can swallow.
B-12 is a very good reason to not be a vegan. My girlfriend would argue that it's also important to have easily accessible protein for all those structures necessary to cell health, but if you eat enough rice and beans you should be okay on that score. I'm a big fan of rice and fish, myself, likely because I was raised on it and it's just good.
I know this discussion rose out of the "life is sacred" arguments, but the food chain isn't something we're going to change just because we don't want death. Until humans somehow get chloroplasts, we can't make our own nourishment, we have to get it from other living things.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:13 AM

Quote:
Contraception and abortion do not in forever destroy the potential for life, because that potential is far too massive to destroy without something destroying or damaging the organs themselves.

The argument I've heard is that it can future affect implantation in the uterus. You have blood vessels and tissues that build up for lining and eventually develop into the placenta in the event of pregnancy. This lining and the ability to produce it can be "stripped" so to speak through sudden and unnatural removal before the body is ready for that.

Of course, if that happens, you would probably be more worried about bleeding to death at the time than you would any future sterility. And certainly the life of the pregnant woman is more important than her future fertility, as well.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm a little lost on the whole eugenics thing. Since forced sterilization does seem to have gone out of fashion (it used to be very common in the mentally ill) and slaughter of another race is frowned upon, offering the option of not having children seems very... not eugenics.

Actually, forced sterilization was still around as of 1985, when I was born and they sterilized my mother. It's also known to happen in invasive settlements of more advanced societies towards indigenous populations. Nowadays if someone gets CAUGHT at it, there's an uproar, but there's sometimes people don't get caught.

...If you don't want to call it eugenics, then call it social engineering, though we've had arguments before about whether indirect sterilization counts as eugenics, and the board consensus was divided. Personally, I think the term eugenics describes what's going on rather well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:35 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magon's, I thought I saw that in your post, I don't know how to do that requoting thing though so I can't show you. But I must have misunderstood, sorry.

I've always tried to understand exactly what passive agressive means, sometimes I think I understand but then someone says I have it wrong, I don't know why I have a hard time understanding what it means. I'm not trying to be it though.

Lily's girlfriend sounds very well versed in these things, I'd trust her judgement about food chain/how to get certain nutrients, biologists are smart folk.

I see a difference between the fact that there are eggs sitting around in my body and the fact that fertilized eggs sitting in my uterus dividing are different than unfertilized eggs. What that difference is is what people are arguing about.

I guess if someone is hellbint on having an abortion I'd rather see them do it in a safe environment than in the back alley. And I think that when a woman has a medically necessary abortion, like an ectopic pregnancy etc. its generally done in the hospital, isn't it? If its not then that seems really weird to me.

In Ireland, last time I checked, abortion is illegal, but women can go to England and have it done if they like, they might even be able to hop over the border and have it done in the North since England still owns the North.

I agree with Byte that there's no way to make wars illegal, that just wouldn't work. I think that in certain rare situations where there is proof beyond doubt, that the death penalty is okay. But I'm the sort who wouldn't use it if there was any reasonable doubt that the convicted person is guilty, I've heard too many stories about someone found innocent through DNA after they've been killed. So is the death penalty okay with me? Yes in certain rare and specific situations. Why is that different than abortion? Because I feel that that person had a chance to maketheir life mean something good and they threw that chance away and I don't want them hurting and killing any more people. I only think the death penalty should be used if the person has killed more than one person and if we know for sure that they did it.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:37 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...If you don't want to call it eugenics, then call it social engineering

I don't see how either term applies. Having birth control options available impacts a population, most assuredly, but since there's no good way to control who choses to take advantage of it, there's no 'engineering' taking place.
If there comes a time when everyone needs some form of permission to have a child, and only certain people can get said permission, we can talk social engineering. This is the exact opposite, with certain people needing a level of permission to not have a child, even if they can't care for it properly. Giving people the options, which can be used at their own discretion, is not engineering or eugenics of any kind.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I've always tried to understand exactly what passive agressive means, sometimes I think I understand but then someone says I have it wrong, I don't know why I have a hard time understanding what it means. I'm not trying to be it though.

"It is a personality trait marked by a pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations."
Saying someone makes good points but too many people have said something nice for you to say something nice is passive-agressive hostility; a disavowed resistance bordering on a personal attack, because it's basically a roundabout way of saying, "No, you're really not awesome at all, and I'm going to go out of my way to say that I'm not going to give you this sort of credit." Just disagree if you disagree. Better yet, make a good refuting argument.

Quote:
I see a difference between the fact that there are eggs sitting around in my body and the fact that fertilized eggs sitting in my uterus dividing are different than unfertilized eggs.

As stated, all are potential life. Wherein lies the difference?

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:52 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Contraception and abortion do not in forever destroy the potential for life, because that potential is far too massive to destroy without something destroying or damaging the organs themselves.

The argument I've heard is that it can future affect implantation in the uterus. You have blood vessels and tissues that build up for lining and eventually develop into the placenta in the event of pregnancy. This lining and the ability to produce it can be "stripped" so to speak through sudden and unnatural removal before the body is ready for that.

I suppose that would be technically possible, but that would be a case of the organ itself being damaged, and cleaner more advanced techniques would be less likely to lead to that. And if that does indeed happen, it's possible to still have a child via surrogate, as long as one has ovaries. If something happens to those, all that potential life is indeed gone, but birth control is not what's most likely to do that sort of damage, cancer is.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:04 AM

Quote:
I don't see how either term applies. Having birth control options available impacts a population, most assuredly, but since there's no good way to control who choses to take advantage of it, there's no 'engineering' taking place.

It's not engineering within that population, it's engineering on a global scale, which is what the early eugenicists were concerned about. They didn't want mixing races, and everyone believed their personal race was superior to the others. The British race thought they were superior to the Irish, the Russians AND Germans both thought they were superior to the slavs, and everyone thought they were superior to the blacks.

The question here is about removing a population from the breeding pool by encouraging them to take themselves out of it (this way, only the genes they consider "good" are left to propagate). The most efficient and effective way to do so is to convince the women to not breed, or to have themselves sterilized. As a side effect, women also tend to be the ones that teach their children, and so this is also a quick way to kill a culture as well.

Arguably, "poor" is the bigger factor now than "race." But then TPTB have always looked down on both, and so if something hits the overlap in both populations, it's not like they're going to care. They believe in social darwinism, if you're poor, it's because you don't have as good of genes. Load of crock, but almost certainly what they believe.

I acknowledge, however, that it used to be only the rich who got abortions. This was before the movement to make abortions available to the broader public. The rich do still get abortions, but the poor tend to get into more dire situations than the rich, which might lead them to chose abortion. I don't know what the current breakdown is about who has more and who has less. I'd assume that the impact is greater to the poor, however.

Quote:
If there comes a time when everyone needs some form of permission to have a child, and only certain people can get said permission, we can talk social engineering. This is the exact opposite, with certain people needing a level of permission to not have a child, even if they can't care for it properly. Giving people the options, which can be used at their own discretion, is not engineering or eugenics of any kind.

Only if you believe that the procedures in question have no danger of "accidentally" or indirectly causing sterilization. A program doesn't have to be focused to have an impact or reduce a population, and successive iterations would see the population further reduced. Theoretically. I'm assuming most of the women seeking permission to not have a child in this case aren't necessarily committing to the worst case scenario of NEVER having children. It's that possibility on the side that gives me pause and makes me wonder if there's some deceit and manipulation going on here.

At the same time, I'll also say that perhaps causing poor people to have more children than they can support, increasing mortality rate, or also forcing people to go without proper medical care may also constitute a form of eugenics. This is what you might call a catch 22 for us. For TPTB, it's a win-win scenario, because either way they can either reduce the population, or control it through the economics of desperation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:08 AM

Quote:
I suppose that would be technically possible, but that would be a case of the organ itself being damaged, and cleaner more advanced techniques would be less likely to lead to that. And if that does indeed happen, it's possible to still have a child via surrogate, as long as one has ovaries.

Sure, though it's more difficult to do if you don't have your own uterus, and costs money that the person might not have.

Quote:
If something happens to those, all that potential life is indeed gone, but birth control is not what's most likely to do that sort of damage, cancer is.

Yes... cancer... Sometimes I wonder about those hormone based monthly birth control regimens. It's not like we don't know that the change in hormone levels associated with menopause can sometimes increase the risk of cancer. It would seem like hormone levels contrary to the natural cycle might also increase the risk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:33 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I can see both sides of Lily and Byte's discussion about social engineering and what does or doesn't constitute it.

Lily I still don't get it. I just notice that she gets plenty of compliments, some of them deserved surely, but I never notice anyone else giving each other that many compliments. I try to tell people when I agree with them but I tend to stay away from general "Wow, you rock" comments. Maybe if I start saying that to people they'll start saying it to me? Byte is a good friend of mine and I don't even give her those compliments. But I always try to show solidarity with people when I agree with them or if they say something cool. This is an interesting point of reflection. I wonder how the way someone compliments others shows what sort of person they are. If you never compliment what does it mean about you? If you compliment about specific aspects of what a person is doing/saying what does that say? If you give blanket compliments what does that say? ...

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:37 AM

I actually appreciate not getting compliments, it's always a little awkward for me.

Something tells me I'm not going to be getting any compliments for this conversation... Anyway, I'm just trying to explain how all of this could constitute eugenics and some of my conspiracy suspicions, it actually doesn't affect whether I think people should get abortions or take birth control pills or not. People are going to do it anyway, you know? I leave it up to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:46 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

The poor might get more abortions (when they can afford to...) but that's more likely to be caused by not feeling they have the means to raise children than a focused conspiracy. There are also more poor people than rich, meaning they would logically have 'more,' though what the proportions are might be a different matter. If I find statistical proportion figures, I'll let you know.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Lily I still don't get it.

I can see that, since I was not telling you that you should give compliments and that's what you focused on. Do or don't compliment someone, as you chose, but going out of your way to say, "I'm not going to compliment you" is essentially a backhanded insult. Putting it in the same context as a potentially complimentary comment is what made it passive-aggressive, and also made a slight muddle of whatever you were trying to say.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:50 AM

Quote:
The poor might get more abortions (when they can afford to...) but that's more likely to be caused by not feeling they have the means to raise children than a focused conspiracy. There are also more poor people than rich, meaning they would logically have 'more,' though what the proportions are might be a different matter. If I find statistical proportion figures, I'll let you know.

Thanks, it would be good to find out.

Also, thanks for not nailing me to the wall... I would've understood if you did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

The argument I've heard is that it can future affect implantation in the uterus. You have blood vessels and tissues that build up for lining and eventually develop into the placenta in the event of pregnancy. This lining and the ability to produce it can be "stripped" so to speak through sudden and unnatural removal before the body is ready for that.

without going into too many of my own personal details, I can tell you from experience that a lot of these procedures can take place for purposes other than destroying a living fetus. I can't count the number of times I've been under anaesthetic? and have had doctors tinkering around 'down there'. Yuck. And it wasn't good for my health, mental or physical. So yes, you should avoid having too many elective procedures, and anaesthetics as they are not going to be good for you. But that is no reason (and I know you are not suggesting it) for a blanket ban.

For abortion to be a safe, viable procedure, you need to have it readily and freely available. It can't be something that a woman has to go to extraordinary lengths to procure. Otherwise you end up with more later term abortions. And its better all round if pregnancies that are to be ended are ended as early as possible. That is why I support the abortion pill. Better for it to happen at 5 weeks with a non surgical intervention than 13 or 14, when the risks outlines above become greater.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:31 PM

Fair enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Actually, forced sterilization was still around as of 1985, when I was born and they sterilized my mother.

Ug, that sucks. I guess for me it is a matter of whether such a procedure, which in my mind is totally unethical, was carried out because a doctor had a eugenically based reason for acting as he or she did, or whether they were just being a pompous prick who thought they knew what was good for a patient without actually taking their patient's wishes (or seeking their thoughts on such issues) into account. In my mind, the latter seems more likely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:46 PM

She'd just had a brain tumor removed at the time, I don't believe it was on her uterus. We're also talking removing something where there could have been bleeding while she was recovering from brain surgery AND from childbirth. The most warning she got was a "Hey, by the way" when she woke up.

The moral of the story: don't go to military hospitals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:51 PM

That's my aim.

Did she recover from the tumour, Byte, if that is not too personal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:58 PM

Well, I have to preface this with "It was the 1980s, and they didn't have quite the technology or the techniques for dealing with brain tumours that they have nowadays."

Yes, she survived, and at the time, she was so glad she survived that she just kinda shrugged off the whole Hi Surprise Hysterectomy thing. But she swears that she took some vocabulary damage, half of her face is paralyzed, and the brain tumour grew back.

...She's had lots of brain tumours. It's a family thing. If I wasn't so dead set against eugenics, I could actually understand the reasoning here.

We're hoping the last one she had out will be the last time she gets them, but unfortunately, I have my doubts. It was a different kind of tumor and in a different location.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 1:11 PM

Quote:
At the same time, I'll also say that perhaps causing poor people to have more children than they can support, increasing mortality rate, or also forcing people to go without proper medical care may also constitute a form of eugenics. This is what you might call a catch 22 for us. For TPTB, it's a win-win scenario, because either way they can either reduce the population, or control it through the economics of desperation.

Yes to the second part. The idea is that they WANT more babies born to poor families in order to force them to work more for less. Look at the union-busting legislation going on around the country, taking away all rights of collective bargaining for certain groups - and WHICH groups are affected will spread, you can count on that! Also, look at efforts to do away with minimum wages, health insurance, labor regulations, hell, ALL regulations, etc.

Michelle Bachmann wasn't kidding when she said the other day that a dollar in 2011 should be worth what a dollar was in 1911. She means it. She's an idiot, but she really does mean that she wants people to be forced to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for $15 a week.

These are people who believe - REALLY believe - that if you just quit paying people so much, prices will magically come down. Of course, they will NEVER support paying billionaires less.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 2:20 PM

Glad to hear she made it through, Byte, and hope that she continues to beat it. Cancer is such a terrible disease.

Quote:

Yes to the second part. The idea is that they WANT more babies born to poor families in order to force them to work more for less. Look at the union-busting legislation going on around the country, taking away all rights of collective bargaining for certain groups - and WHICH groups are affected will spread, you can count on that! Also, look at efforts to do away with minimum wages, health insurance, labor regulations, hell, ALL regulations, etc.

yep, the alternate argument to eugenics is that the powerful actually need an underclass to boss around and have as lackeys and slaves. The Catholic Church continues to ban contraception of all kinds for its members because poor families with lots of kids are their most compliant 'fanbase'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:57 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

THT

They aren't loaded questions.

I've come to the provisional conclusion that as a language-using species, we probably shouldn't be using abstract words. Generally they represent either a poorly thought-out belief or an attempt on someone's part to get you to believe something.

So for example, when someone wants you to go fight in Vietnam (to use what I hope is a non-controversial example) they will tell you it's so you can defend 'freedom'. You, as the listener, as supposed to take on faith that 'freedom' is a good thing, and trust that by sacrificing yourself and killing and maiming others for 'freedom' things will work out well in the end - if not for you, then for the future at large.

Abstract words are a way of avoiding reality.

By asking my questions in a very concrete way, I hope to gain an understanding I don't have now when you say you 'value' human life; an understanding beyond that you have some kind of squishy good feeling for a fetus, even if created and carried by other people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 6:10 PM

As Geezer pointed out in the News of the World thread, every Planned Parenthood clinic or abortion clinic or women's health clinic that is forced to close under Draconian legislation aimed solely at putting them out of business, takes with it a certain number of people who will be put out of work.

I thought conservatives and tea-baggers were all about "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"

I must have heard wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2011 6:20 PM