Right now, you have the right to have children, or not to by Niki2

Niki, you want change? Here's a tip: This policy is, as you just demonstrated, only changing in one direction. Reason? Evolution.

For 27 years, scientists worked on a plan to create a strain of mosquitoes that wouldn't breed, and that would hurt the fertility rate of any mosquito that mated with them. They then lab synthesized 150 of them and released them into the world population of 1 trillion mosquitoes.

Oh... and I'm sure you're sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for the result. Um. Okay. It didn't work.

How much do you *really* believe in evolution? Mother nature is a bitch. If you want that policy, I recommend you advocate against change.

The Duggars may not believe in evolution, but it sure believes in them

Oh, and when they grow up, and enter the real world, along with the littletons

And the Jeubs

And the Palins

Guess how they will react. Also, remember that information is forever, and what a lot in the pro-choice movement have written about the Quiverfull movement is not going to be easily forgotten. (Just like how I'm not about to forget Sanger's writings about slavs and blacks, or Stopes, or the little visit that PP made to my mom before I was born, 'cause, my sister, ya know.)

I know you're jonesing for another abortion thread. Sorry, ain't happening, and I suggest you give it a rest.

Speaking as a fellow democrat who would actually like to see democrats get elected (good democrats, like Hinchey, Leahy, not "anything that wears blue") I have to say, you're on the losing side of a losing issue. Remember recently when all the dems were out stomping in favor of Planned Parenthood so recently? Picture this: Herman Cain making the case to black america that the democratic party is a genocidally racist organization. It's not a difficult case to make, especially historically. Don't make it easy for him. Your base is my base to.

I have serious doubts about the party, but I will make you a really solid bet in more than donuts that you're gunning for failure here.

Children per household:
Amish: 7
Quiverfull: 6
Satmars: 5
Hindus: 3.5
Atheists: 1

This has been true for more than 20 years. Or should I say, more importantly, more than 18.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 5:07 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

DT a chara, your "The Duggars may not believe in evolution, but evolution believes in them" was hy-larious. You've got a good point, these are the people who are reproducing, thus meaning there are becoming more and more of them. Now granted a person's beliefs are not completely dictated by their parents, but a decent chunk of folk tend to stick reasonable close to how they were raised, give or take some. People often seem to be quite like their parents or totally opposite once they grow up and have kids themselves. I'm the Christian woman who isn't reproducing though.

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

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 5:38 PM

STORYMARK

This seems appropo:

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:13 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.

If you look at animal species worldwide, generally they breed and adapt to the capacity limit, either the environment's to support them, or the species' tolerance for the environment, or both. I can't think of a single animal species where members don't starve at times (deer) or endure very harsh conditions (emperor penguins). Life has always been precarious and tough. Nature may look bountiful and abundant, but there are no Edens.

HOWEVER - I think that when we humans acquired even the smallest bit of technology - the bowl perhaps, or the rock to pound things with - along with language - our survival was pretty much assured in the normal geological course.

Our problem is we haven't figured that out. We breed to the point of induced scarcity. We breed as if we were at the edge of survival. We take from each other as if a place in the hierarchy stood between us and extinction. As individuals, we could all be living well and securely by not breeding so much and by not preying on each other (and by that I mean our economies and hierarchies). But we don't. Too bad we're smart but not THAT smart.

Well, evolution isn't a journey to a goal. We wouldn't be the first species to evolve down a dead end path because it worked almost well enough to be viable.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:38 PM

Quote:
Well, evolution isn't a journey to a goal. We wouldn't be the first species to evolve down a dead end path.

...Huh?

Sentience, apex species, dead end path?

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:43 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.

If I were to decide which was the 'top' species of evolution, it would be bacteria. Nothing has wiped them out for billions of years, or is likely too for more billions of years.

The fact that we place ourselves at the top because we are the ones making the list is meaningless in the face of survival or extinction.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:46 PM

Bacteria aren't a species, and many have died out numerous times.

Apex species is a term. Means that nothing else hunts them (parasites are not considered to count).

I do not understand your argument. You suggest sentience will be the downfall of human life. You are against sentience?

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think I get Kiki's point:

We breed like bacteria in a petri dish. When we get to the point where we are limited either by our resources or by our waste, our population will follow the boom and crash cycle that ALL unthinking creatures follow. Ergo, since we behave like bacteria... and all other animals... we must not be very smart. Not an "apex" of intelligence, anyway.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:06 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.

Bacteria don't die so much as divide. One splits into two, and two into four. While individuals germs may die, the rest survive. They must, or we would have no bacteria or archaebacteria. In one version or another they go back billions of years.

OTOH certain life forms are gone completely like trilobites or saber toothed tigers.

Humans aren't apex species, if that's what you meant.

"You suggest sentience will be the downfall of human life."

No, just that while we use tools and think we think as our evolutionary heritage, we aren't that smart. Or we would have realized guaranteed survival was in our hands, literally, and stopped behaving like unthinking animals at the edge of species death.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Well, evolution isn't a journey to a goal. We wouldn't be the first species to evolve down a dead end path because it worked almost well enough to be viable.

Sorry, that wins the nonsensical line award. You do *get* this evolution concept, right? I mean, those who effectively survive to reproduce replace those who don't?

Sure, locally some human populations are so eco-destructive that they destroy the world. The aborigines, bushmen, huari, the first people of china, I forget what they're called, there are 10,000 of them left. But then other people come in and replace them.

As for food, we appear to produce enough for a trillion humans. There are roughly 18 trillion mice, (and okay, a human eats 50-100 times what a mouse does, but still they're hunter gatherers, and that's still around 180-360 billion) Humans are 90% mouse.

But whatever humans reproduce, they will replace those that don't.

Kiki,

You make one good point here: A *small* bit of technology, a *little* knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's societies with enough skill to be able to kill the earth but not realize that there's no long term viability in that. Some groups of rats have had the same problem, so its not just technology.

My general rule is be wary of any cultural values with a desert origin. Chances are, those values had some hand in making that desert (ergo, better to live a mayan lifestyle than an aztec one.)

I'm not sure this is evolution per se, in a biological sense, but societies are statistical populations and they do evolve, such as prohibitions on eating pork, etc. is going to be faster as an evolutionary correcting force than developing a resistance to trichinosis

Riona,

Good point, as I keep saying statistically, 90% of people share their parents political views. I probably share 90% of my parents', with a couple exceptions, I'm overall more anti-govt than they are, but just as anti-war and pro-environment.

ETA: Bacteria suffer massive die offs. The most successful species on the planet actually is mitochondria. The most successful multicellular species is the nematode, and the most successful complex lifeform is the krill. The most successful land animal is the termite, and the most successful land species are all plants. By biomass, trees.

The most successful mammal is the mouse. Our evolutionary tree puts us as a subspecies of arboreal fieldmouse. This should put us in good standing, but, of course, if we fail it will be because of our competition with mice, which we might fail at.

Signy

Good point. The human petri dish here is the Earth. When bacteria hit colony collapse it's because their pollution of their own environment reaches the extreme where the food and water they take in is toxic to them. We appear to right now be artificially creating this situation for ourselves. Long term it might be a problem for us, but I guess I always figured we'd develop space travel long before we hit that point. Certainly, on a pure human food consumption/waste production/population basis, we're nowhere near that point. Our industry is a different matter.

Of course, that would again paint a future world inhabited by the Amish, not exactly a technological future.

ETA:

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

OTOH certain life forms are gone completely like trilobites or saber toothed tigers.

Humans aren't apex species, if that's what you meant.

No, just that while we use tools and think we think as our evolutionary heritage, we aren't that smart. Or we would have realized guaranteed survival was in our hands, literally, and stopped behaving like unthinking animals at the edge of species death.

Kiki,

not trying to be harsh, just a few other comments here:

1) We're an apex species because nothing eats us. That's how it's defined. We're not strictly speaking a predator.

2) Saber toothed tigers are gone because early humans killed them, much like they did with dire wolves. It was most likely a macho thing, "slaying the dragon."

3) When I learned this, horseshoe crabs were considered trilobites. Now I see they are considered sea scorpions. Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction

They weren't killed off by a burn out, but rather by what IIRC was the most deadly event in world history.

Humans won't burn out if we don't destroy the earth, we'll just be replaced by different humans. I think at the moment we're ruled by desert cultures, and that mentality is harming us. We have three major middle eastern religions and an economic system that comes from Egypt, non of which looks like an environmental model one should emulate.

The fertile crescent of said middle eastern forebearers overlaid on a recent satellite image of the area:

Ground view of one of its most habitable spots:

What makes it obvious habitable: The cracks. They indicate there was water there at some point within at least the last few of years, otherwise wind erosion would have leveled it.

That we look to thousands of year old texts that created this of their homeland boggles the mind.

When moses decided they were doing it wrong, he went up on top of this mountain

So he told them to strike forth and find a promised land where everything was green

(okay, it was green at the time)

Jesus lived here:

Mohammed somewhere around here:

The Mayans had a more eco-friendly culture

We need a culture that is both eco-friendly, and capable of defeating the destructive ones in an evolutionary sense. As long as the destructive cultures out reproduce us, out gun us and out maneuver us financially, they will determine the future. And, obviously, religious fervor is something that evolution selects for.

ETA2:

Above you're looking at the capital city of Tikal, (1100 years overgrown) a city about 100 times the size of of Caral, (3000 years overgrown) ancient peace-loving capital, pictured below. It matters how you treat the environment.

ETA3:

The Ancient Wari culture of Caral and successor states was quite remarkable for its religious fervor, which was not unlike that of western religions. Just as a side note.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:24 AM

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

My gawd, I can't believe it. This immediately became a discussion of evolution?? And overpopulation??

This was about a WOMAN's right to CHOOSE, and that political forces--the right wing, which, if anyone happened to notice, generally has a lot of kids--who wants us to have MORE kids and will use the power thy were given to do other things to force their agenda on others. That in any way having to do with "evolution" is laughable, in my opinion.

I'm not going to debate evolution, tho' I'd vote for bacteria--or insects!--as the dominant species and the ones most likely to survive.

But this is about RIGHTS, nothing else. DT made the statement that is in the title, so when I ran across the story, I put it up to show him that increasing numbers of us do NOT have the right to not have children. And why.

Any thread can go anywhere people want it to, so I'm not trying to stifle it. I'm just rather surprised that nobody cares about this issue; if you want to talk about tyranny starting somewhere, I'm saying in my opinion this is one of the places it begins. Not in a "eugenics" way (down, DT

) but in an ideological way in which some people feel the rest of us need to be told what we can and can't do, and feel they have the right to decide what those things are, despite the law of the land supposedly PROTECTING that right.

It's obvious from things I write and how this article affected me that I feel strongly on this issue, but since I'm not into the way it's gone, I'll leave it to others to continue and quietly fade away.

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

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

That's the thing, and it pisses me off severely, that everytime someone wants to talk about this as a rights issue, in comes his personal flood of crazy, and no one wants to deal with it, so it poisons the thread beyond recovery.

Nor does anyone seem keen to address how the very same folk screamin about abortion are the same motherfuckers stifling education and blocking access to contraceptives, creating the very problem they're howling about - and as of late I've discovered no few of them are *also* sabotaging the adoption system besides, which annoyed but didn't surprise me when we were dealing with state-level reforms of that issue.

But anyhow, no one wants to listen to pages and pages of lunatic screed, and for mine own, I am starting to wonder if he's doin that shit deliberately in order TO stifle discussion of it as a womens rights issue - it's pissin me off either way, it is.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:22 PM

Quote:
I put it up to show him that increasing numbers of us do NOT have the right to not have children.

...Well, the way I would put it is that until a certain point (conception) people have a choice, and the choices are being limited after.

I know I'm being captain obvious, but, you know, asexual here. I'm not getting pregnant unless I get raped, and I'm pretty darn sure if someone actually managed it, I'd die of my injuries long before it even became an issue.

And damn, but would they have to be hard up. So I don't see it happening.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:29 PM

Quote:
that everytime someone wants to talk about this as a rights issue, in comes his personal flood of crazy, and no one wants to deal with it, so it poisons the thread beyond recovery.

I don't see it as crazy or poison, but I support you guys and your right to talk about this in public without being shouted down or flooded out.

Though to be fair, this thread was directed specifically at DT, and quoted something he said, so he was going to respond.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:05 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.

"... I'm just rather surprised that nobody cares about this issue ..."

I just see that many people are pretty crazy. And not in a PN way, but in a 'everybody I know believes it so it's true' kind of way. I've written off this society, this culture, maybe this species. (Time and circumstance of course will tell if what I think is true, though most likely I won't be here to see if I'm right.)

While I AM doing what I can to preserve what I think are rational, humane social agreements, I admit to being pretty tired of what seems like the endless struggle against voodoo (which is what all belief amounts to). And it's hard to be invested since I've emotionally written so much of the US off.

I mean - seriously. People are debating global warming, BELIEVING that praying to the gods for magic to solve the very problems we created will work (think Rick Perry), focused on whomever trivial nothing the media focuses on, and in general acting like anything but the intelligent species we pride ourselves on being.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:12 PM

Agreed, law makers can't make you have children and a person shouldn't start a thread with a personal challenge and not expect it to be answered.

We've had the 'women's right to choose' vs 'unborn child's right to live before. (or collection-of-cells-might-a-child-if-nothing-goes-wrong-or-isn't-aborted if you prefer). I don't suspect we'll see much new here.

Quote:
Nor does anyone seem keen to address how the very same folk screamin about abortion are the same motherfuckers stifling education and blocking access to contraceptives, creating the very problem they're howling about - and as of late I've discovered no few of them are *also* sabotaging the adoption system besides, which annoyed but didn't surprise me when we were dealing with state-level reforms of that issue.

Not much to address, this is a separate issue. Also a logical fallacy if it was meant to prove the those against abortion are always 'wrong.' Even folk with many a 'bad' idea can have an occasional 'good' one. There's also many of the pro life position that are in favor of contraception and education, I consider myself one of them. Of course, I'm not much a 'screamer' and I suspect most pro-life/pro contraception folk probably aren't either. Then again, how many 'screamers' have a positive and logical track record on any issue?

(I have a heavy work schedule right now and may not make many replies. Though I anticipate flames, my lack of reply may be more related to work than 'planned ignoring.')

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:22 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.

"Also a logical fallacy if it was meant to prove the those against abortion are always 'wrong.'"

No, it just shows that their logic is (to put it politely) inconsistent - that their supposed belief in the universal sanctity of human life and the VERY REASON to be against abortion is ... well, at best a personal thought-gap.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

"Also a logical fallacy if it was meant to prove the those against abortion are always 'wrong.'"

No, it just shows that their logic is (to put it politely) inconsistent - that their supposed belief in the universal sanctity of human life and the VERY REASON to be against abortion is ... well, at best a personal thought-gap.

It is a logical fallacy because it attacks a group of people based on their positions on a separate issue(s).

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:51 PM

Byte,

Thank you.

Niki, meet the thread jack. Oh, and while I'm at it, meet the unmoderated forum. You don't determine what other people get to talk about. Yes, this is a thread about evolution. It was as byte said directed at me, carried over from another thread, where the subject was change, conservation and the nature of change. This was addressed to me, carrying off from that point.

Frem, Give it a rest. WTF: You yell at me for any suggestion on spamming, rudeness, etc. and call me a mod? Yet you missed the above blatant attempt to force the discussion? Also, shelve the "Frem, white knight of women's rights" act already. You've tried this one way too many times. Do you think women stupid?

Niki, Frem,

You know damned well what my position is on that issue: My faith recognizes all life as sacred. If lives conflict, I favor whatever is alive and sentient over whatever isn't.
I support no one's right to kill, and I support no one's right to ban potentially life-saving surgery. It was the first thing I posted on FFF almost six year ago, in response to CTS's comment to the same effect. I've had to post it several times since then to answer you guys deliberately mischaracterizing my position. I think Frem last time you said "I wanted us to go back to coat-hangers" which was the opening line of the discuss.

Anyone who wants to discuss abortion: start your own gorram thread on it without me. Please, don't include me, or a strawman of me.

Now, if we may, before we were so rudely interrupted, (note not one person posted on the subject of abortion prior to the demand just made) we were talking about evolution, change, and the future of the human race (Thank you, 1Kiki for bring us back)

Kiki,

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I'm just rather surprised that nobody cares about this issue ..."

I just see that many people are pretty crazy. And not in a PN way, but in a 'everybody I know believes it so it's true' kind of way. I've written off this society, this culture, maybe this species. (Time and circumstance of course will tell if what I think is true, though most likely I won't be here to see if I'm right.)

I take the point that any religion, even my own, may be a form of insanity, but the way I see it, I prefer insanity to stupidity. When I became a taoist, my spiritual guide was, or rather still is, a Swami, trained in many eastern faiths, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism from which his teachings draw. I spent a lot of time reading ancient texts in the hope of gleaning some sort of wisdom from them.

So, yes, the insanity innate in this is that you are trusting to the superior wisdom of those who came before you, now long dead, over your own judgment. But I do this, as most people do, on the faith that their judgment is, by default, better than my own.

I have also written of our culture, which is why I sought answer elsewhere, but I think it's possible that more level heads will prevail, and create a future out of chistianity, judaism and islam which is not as self-destructive as it apparently seems to be.

Quote:

While I AM doing what I can to preserve what I think are rational, humane social agreements, I admit to being pretty tired of what seems like the endless struggle against voodoo (which is what all belief amounts to). And it's hard to be invested since I've emotionally written so much of the US off.

Voodoo is underrated as a religion. Like many animist religions, its center point is medicinal, and on that point, many of its treatments are quite effective.

I assume you're referring more to the dogmatic insanity that adhering to ancient texts without applying any thought reason or science to it, or updating ideas to the world in which we live and on that point I would agree, but I don't know that humanity as a species is in a position to give up on the wisdom of its ancestors, for a couple of reasons:

1) I think the social experiments so far, socialism certainly, and capitalism to some extent, to the "capital" and banking/credit and fiat portions of economics, and even democracy have failed us in achieving any sort of enlightened state and we're still ruled by petty controlling elites.

2) The information flow by which humans learn on entirely new data alone can be easily manipulated by those who provide the data, and deliver it to us via the media or education system, and thus can lead us far astray from our natural best interests as both a species and as inhabitants of this planet.

Without an anchor, whatever we personally choose to use, I think we are easily led down a familiar but destructive path which serves only those who rule over us, whether they do so through socialism, capitalism, democracy or theocracy, in the end it makes no difference, they are still in power, and still shepherding us towards the goal of supporting the interests of said elites ahead of our own or those of the planet, or anything else living on it.

So, sure, religion can also be used as a power structure just like the others, but I think that we are weaker if we are left to make these decisions without any starting point.

Quote:

I mean - seriously. People are debating global warming, BELIEVING that praying to the gods for magic to solve the very problems we created will work (think Rick Perry), focused on whomever trivial nothing the media focuses on, and in general acting like anything but the intelligent species we pride ourselves on being.

I debate global warming too. I think it's a serious issue, but I also think that it's part of a more major issue of the dessication of the environment and the loss of the natural exchange systems of photosynthesis and transpiration and not the result of industrial co2. I did the calculations quite extensively on the board here, enough to show what I thought was quite conclusively that this was the case and collected basically no interest from folks debating GW.

The reason is that again, if we have no basis, like Byte's adherence to the scientific method, or mine to eastern philosophy, that we also tend to re-invent religions, and form new belief systems based on the new ideas.

The problem, as I see it, is that we as humans do not instantly change the way we look at problems just because we put down the Holy Bible and cross it off as false, and pick up Darwin, or a movie by Al Gore. We tend to believe, based on arguments made to us, and then we tend to hold to those beliefs because we feel lost without them.

Take, for instance, the basically religious beliefs of the political partisans here. They hold to their blue and red positions in an unswerving manner, because they have faith that this perspective is correct. If they have to re-examine that, they would be left with the same uncomfortable feeling. This can lead into people not investigating problems any further because they fear losing the conclusion that brought them to what they currently believe. If your underlying ideas are are solid, you should be able to let go, reconsider, and come back at a perhaps more accurate picture, but it is not typically in human nature to do so.

ETA: Happy, yes, we've had some 65 threads or so on the topic. That's more than enough for me.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:12 PM

Quote:

Not much to address, this is a separate issue. Also a logical fallacy if it was meant to prove the those against abortion are always 'wrong.' Even folk with many a 'bad' idea can have an occasional 'good' one. There's also many of the pro life position that are in favor of contraception and education, I consider myself one of them.

Good for you being for contraception education, because I actually think these AREN'T separate issues. Logically speaking, one kind of leads to another, and there are equally obvious consequences if someone doesn't approve of either.

If someone is going to be pro-life OR pro-choice, then it is only responsible to support or fix the solutions and alternatives to abortion. I will agree with Frem that I think that the people against contraceptive education have some serious rationality failure.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:32 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.

"It is a logical fallacy because it attacks a group of people based on their positions on a separate issue(s)." If you are against abortion as the MOST IMPORTANT value you hold due to the HIGHEST SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE, then you will do anything, ANYTHING to prevent that worst of all evils. And that includes at the very least education and certain forms of contraception. If you withhold those, then clearly, there is a value you hold higher than preventing abortion. Yes, they are linked.

But if abortion is a conditional consideration, clearly other values have been at least acknowledged and ranked, whether you agree with the particulars or not. And we can always discuss the particulars.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:40 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 We are at the point where we need to stop looking at how we feel inside and ask two questions - will it hurt the planet? and will it keep us alive? Anything else is irrelevant.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 7:08 PM

Well, the people should have rights.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:03 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.

Absolutely. And if humanity choses to walk off a cliff in a self-induced haze - oh well.

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Absolutely. And if humanity choses to walk off a cliff in a self-induced haze - oh well.

A close friend of mine did that actually. Marijuana was the all natural assistant of his demise, and about 80 feet was the fall. They found him three days later, decayed and eaten by fish. I think I posted that story here already though.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:48 AM

@ Byte and Kiki

If abortion is considered contraception, then they are the same issue, but it's my understanding that restrictions placed on abortion do not apply to condoms. Either way, 'abortion should not be restricted because pro-lifer's are hypocrite or douche' is not a real argument and neither is branding pro-life as 'anti-women's rights.'

Is a pacifist who owns a gun inherently wrong or adding to the violence problem? Can support of 2nd amendment rights invalidate a person's anti-war stance? Is a person who has debt (such as student loans or a mortgage) unfit to contribute to budget talks? How about the person who makes loans to those folk?

As for alternatives, the few I've known to be both anti-abortion and anti-contraception have also been pro-adoption.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 1:49 AM

Hey, I wasn't even talking about abortion as emergency contraception. Emergency contraception works for cases of rape, but I would be a little hesitant about recommending it after implantation, there's some side effects I think could be pretty dangerous.

So I wasn't talking about contraception education as emergency contraception, I was talking about, like condoms and diaphragms and hormone pills and such. Some people are AGAINST those, because they think it'll encourage kids to have sex out of wedlock. Problem with that thinking is, kids are going to do it anyway.

Quite simply, these two issues are, if not the same issue, they're pretty closely linked.

Also, the main problem I find with people who support adoption-only is that their interest in the subject seems to mostly end there. Little interest in improving the adoption system to make it so a wider variation of religions and family types can adopt, little interest in cleaning up the foster care system, little interest in themselves adopting. You need probably a little more than that, just a little more than, oops, you got preggers, toss the little jerk to these complete and not altogether trustworthy strangers.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:06 AM

KWICKO

"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:
Good point, as I keep saying statistically, 90% of people share their parents political views. I probably share 90% of my parents', with a couple exceptions, I'm overall more anti-govt than they are, but just as anti-war and pro-environment.

Thing is, just because you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's actually true.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:29 AM

I despair. One of these ideas had science fiction interest, the other, well, it really deserves this comment:

Yes, guys, that was the most important thing about firefly: The abortions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, just because you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's actually true.

Mike, that was what Zobgy polls reported when I looked it up, feel free to find different data, but expect similar results.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:29 AM

The issues aren't completely unrelated, I wasn't arguing that. Just saying they are separate issues. Much like violence and gun owner ship. The right to contraceptives and guns does not make anyone use either irresponsibly, but there's still people against it.

For the record, I know several pro life folks but can count on one hand with fingers to spare the number that are against abortion and contraception, and they ain't younger than 50. I've heard that that number is quite large but I've never seen it and am skeptical it's as large and dangerous as we are lead to believe. Contraception certainly doesn't seem to make the news as often as abortion does.

I think the anti-education and anti-contraception position is foolish, but that doesn't mean abortions should not be reasonably restricted.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:46 AM

It's really not so much that there are large numbers who are against contraception I think, but that to appeal to constituents certain people in power try to push Abstinence Only education to curry favour. The problem is that the older than fifty voting block is very reliable and generally has the best turn-out, and they often don't like all these shameless young whippersnappers everywhere. They think the kids these days need some morals put into them, but it has unfortunate consequences.

If there wasn't an Abstinence Only movement, at least at the political level, I'd agree with you that this isn't a big deal, but there clearly is.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:49 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I despair. One of these ideas had science fiction interest, the other, well, it really deserves this comment:

Yes, guys, that was the most important thing about firefly: The abortions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, just because you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's actually true.

Mike, that was what Zobgy polls reported when I looked it up, feel free to find different data, but expect similar results.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Well, feel free to post those polls.

I only mention it because you keep making claims, you keep being disagreed with about those claims, and you keep refusing to post data that backs your claims, all while claiming that you of course HAVE such data...

It starts to sound more than a little fishy after the umpteenth interation of it. Kind of like a candidate saying he's got a "secret plan" to fix the whole economy, but he won't share it until after he's elected.

If you have polling, post it.

Otherwise, you're just pulling another version of the ol' Rappy "I'm right; you're wrong, the facts back me up, and I'm not going to waste time posting any of those facts because you're not worth the time" rap.

"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 21, 2011 6:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh yeah, another thread about nonexistent "rights".

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:59 AM

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

Frem: Everything you said.

Byte:

Quote:
until a certain point (conception) people have a choice, and the choices are being limited after

I disagree. What about young people who are denied sex education so don't know the dangers? O the ones who are too immature to understand the consequences? What about rape? What about incest?

Quote:
the main problem I find with people who support adoption-only is that their interest in the subject seems to mostly end there

Oh yes, oh yes, ohyes. That is the second most important argument against the pro-lifers which bothers me. First, utilization of their power to force things on others, second the dichotomy of caring about life only until it comes into the world. As I always say, I'll respect any pro-lifer who adopts an unwanted child themselves for their decision (including Bachman), but few do.

Kiki, I agree with everything you posted.

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 21, 2011 7:00 AM

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

Happy,

Quote:
a person shouldn't start a thread with a personal challenge and not expect it to be answered

Never expected it not to be answered, and the issue was, as I've said, about one segment of society having the power to deny another segment their rights, as well as to point out that, while the Tea Party/extreme right got elected on many things, it wasn't about making abortion impossible to MOST of the electorate.

Quote:
it attacks a group of people based on their positions on a separate issue(s)

Not sure what you're saying there, but is it an "attack" if the facts PROVE they are imposing their will on others, whatever the issue? That's what it's about: Not people's positions, but people's ACTIONS in forcing that position on others.

Quote:
it's my understanding that restrictions placed on abortion do not apply to condoms

There you are wrong, in a way. The same segment of society which is utilizing their power to prevent abortions is often the same one working against sex education and utilizing methods like the birth-control pill to avoid contraception, among other things. Essentially these people are attacking ANY method of avoiding pregnancy. So it's all connected, as Byte said.

Quote:
the few I've known to be both anti-abortion and anti-contraception have also been pro-adoption

Being pro-adoption and ACTING ON IT are two different things. Being anti-choice and acting on it is what's happening with the vast majority of pro-lifers who are attempting to force their will on others.

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 21, 2011 7:02 AM

http://www.sodahead.com/living/do-you-have-the-same-or-similar-politic
al-views-as-your-parents/question-919057/?page=3

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

DT, you continue to amaze me.

Quote:
Oh, and while I'm at it, meet the unmoderated forum. You don't determine what other people get to talk about

Quote:
the above blatant attempt to force the discussion

First off, if I were to say the same to you in similar circumstances, bet you'd consider it an attack. Second, obviously you chose not to read where I said quite clearly

Quote:
Any thread can go anywhere people want it to, so I'm not trying to stifle it.

I say that because apparently you read the rest of my post. Mischaracterize much? Why do you do that, I wonder? I fully expect that sort of thing from Raptor or Wulf or their ilk. But then, you seem to ME to be getting more like Raptor in some respects, so maybe it follows.

Gosh, I'm getting sick of "strawman"...it's as overused as "eugenics". How exactly is posting facts that refute your argument that women have the right to have children or not a "strawman" of any kind? It's a fact, pure and simple, and I showed the reasons it's true. You never bothered to admit that your statement was wrong, and hey, ho, I have as much right to post whatever I want, as well, y'know? That unmoderated forum thing, remember?

Which, by the way, also addresses the statements

Quote:
before we were so rudely interrupted, (note not one person posted on the subject of abortion prior to the demand just made

and

Quote:
blatant attempt to force the discussion

You sure find it easy to put others down, and sure see things which have no intention of putting YOU down as dramatic "force", "demand" and "rude interruption" and perfectly okay to say such things to others.

Quote:
you are trusting to the superior wisdom of those who came before you, now long dead, over your own judgment

if the "wisdom" of those who "came before" us was always superior, and always wisdom, how did we evolve our understanding of the universe, science, medicine, etc.? If we did as you seem to believe is right, avoided change out of fear and trusted those before us, where would we be now? In my opinion, worse off than we are. We make mistakes in how we UTILIZE new ideas, but to suggest we should always do as those before us have told us to...well, "no comment". Unlike you, I choose not to ignore that you caveated your statement with the statement that

Quote:
on that point I would agree

regarding the concept that NO progress in many aspects of civilization is a bad thing, but your argument is that one needs an "anchor", a "base", and I say that said anchor doesn't need to be religion.

Ahhh, this one again:

Quote:
90% of people share their parents political views

STILL waiting for something to back up that assertion, if you wouldn't mind. Asked for it before, but you've yet to respond. You've mentioned Zogby polls, but no specifics.

But I'll take your challenge:

Quote:
Do You Have The Same Or Similar Political Views As Your Parents?

Yes: 36%
No: 44%
Undecided: 19%

Quote:
How many kids eventually register in the same political party as their parents?

"The authors of "The American Voter Revisited," published this year, found that parents who have the same party affiliation pass it to their children about 75 percent of the time." In essence, it's more likely for a young liberal to be from a conservative family than for a young conservative to come from a liberal family, said Mike McDevitt, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501115758AADPQr3

Quote:
Do you belong to the same political party as your parents?

Same: 53.06%
Opposite: 24.49%
I'm moderate; parents weren't: 22.45%

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=129128

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/Teens-Stay-True-Parents-Political-Per
spectives.asp] How much influence did your parent's plitial beliefs have on your own?

Great deal: 14.52%
Some influnce: 42.9%
No influence: 27.78
We suppor t same party: 12.96%
Don't support same party: 25.93%

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/poll-4064-a.html

Three pages into Google with the question, nowhere could I find your "90%" figure.

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 21, 2011 7:10 AM

Quote:
Quote:
until a certain point (conception) people have a choice, and the choices are being limited after

I disagree. What about young people who are denied sex education so don't know the dangers? O the ones who are too immature to understand the consequences? What about rape? What about incest?

We are currently discussing those. YOU, however, were speaking in generalities when you wrote what I was responding to, so I had to disagree. Also, I'm almost offended you bring that up as if I don't know, and as if rape, incest, and the medical health of the mother aren't MAJOR exceptions to anti-abortion laws in most cases, provided people like Sarah Palin don't have their way.

Not every unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or lack of information. I don't know the numbers, but it would seem to me the vast majority aren't, and so those people DO have a choice. Therefore, there is still plenty of room for people who don't want children to not have them.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:21 AM

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

Byte, I treat this as a debate; in debating, one points out the fallacy(ies) in the other person's stance. You said "people", so I pointed out that it wasn't ALL people. Has nothing to do with you not knowing; has to do with the phraseology you chose to use. Of course I know you know otherwise, I was making the point that YOU were generalizing with the unmodified statement "people". And I believe I merely said "I disagree". The intent was never to offend, simply to respond. I'm sad you find it so.

I have no doubt the qualifications I presented are in the (probably vast) minority; I was noting that those exceptions are not permitted by some, and wouldn't be permitted by many others if they had the power (a la Palin, Bachman, and others).

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 21, 2011 7:42 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Absolutely. And if humanity choses to walk off a cliff in a self-induced haze - oh well.
A close friend of mine did that actually. Marijuana was the all natural assistant of his demise, and about 80 feet was the fall. They found him three days later, decayed and eaten by fish. I think I posted that story here already though.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Evolutionarily speaking, I hope he didn't have children.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:02 AM

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

Hubby calls stuff like that "evolution in action".

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 21, 2011 8:09 AM

Quote:

I have no doubt the qualifications I presented are in the (probably vast) minority; I was noting that those exceptions are not permitted by some, and wouldn't be permitted by many others if they had the power (a la Palin, Bachman, and others).

The reason I was offended is because it was almost like, just because of what I said, I was being conflated with people like them.

I wasn't speaking as someone who thinks "hey, yeah, no abortions for rape victims and let mothers with medical conditions die because they're all fornicators."

I was speaking as an asexual, who has not had children, and my having not had children and the many women who have chosen not to have children is in direct contradiction to your original statement.

But, perhaps both of our statements were too general, and I should have been more specific. Apologies for the incivility.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:00 AM

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

Oh, okay, there's your post. But mine still doesn't show up. For clarty's sake, no apology is necessary and I never thought you were uncivl. I get where the misunderstanding occurred and I regret I wasn't clear enough, and FYI, I would NEVER lump you with those you referenced!

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 21, 2011 11:21 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

DT a chara, I'm sorry about what happened to your friend, I find it rather callous that others, instead of sending condolences are just saying things like "I hope he didn't breed". Sure there's a piece of me that worries about that aspect, but it doesn't seem relevent or tactful right now.

Niki, I know what you mean about DT's sensativities: He always feels attacked, rightly sometimes and wrongly sometimes, because of people disagreeing and saying things to him, but he doesn't seem to mind disagreeing and saying loaded things to others. I guess we all have moments like that so I can't judge, but your point and its relevence doesn't escape me.

I'm definitely pro life and I agree that preventative controception is different than afterword controception. I also agree that abortion/abortative controception are a different issue than sex ed and prevention, though they are sort of a continuum (spelling?). I'm one of those who believes that sex ed is important, because they'll do it anyway, we want to limit damage, especially with the society we live in now where waiting until marriage is nye on unheard of.

I'm prolife, but Niki has been causing me to think about how women will find a way to abort, whether its at a doctor's office or in a back alley, I guess if they're going to do it and can't be talked out of it I'd rather they didn't do it in the back alley where they themselves are at more risk. But I think the most important thing is to discourage it being done and encouraging other choices and safer/more protected sex practices to begin with.

Byte, I know you know this, but any woman can be raped, pretty or plain, old or young, whatever type a woman is physically there is someone out there who likes hurting that type and enjoys the violence of rape. I think your saving grace will be your good fighting skills and your ferocity, I think you stand in good stead since you're a scrapper and can fight.

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

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:05 PM

Niki,
You have a point about young liberals, but this has always been true, if you ask people how you feel now vs, in the past, people i think would overwhelmingly say "more conservative." everyone in my family has difted to the right over time. I used to be a socialist. My mom and two of my sibs are solid centrists like me now, as is my dad. My uncle who was right wing is now way off the edge of right wing,

Mike,
'tweren't funny mcgee. I blame drugs, not eugenics. But somehow, even though i seem the ironically humorous attempt i cannot laugh at my former best friends suicide.

As for polls, it wasn't online that i saw it, it was at his presentation. Zogby is secretly a dem, though he tries to be neutral, but he wants to make sure that future demographics support the democratic party

Riona, thanks

Byte, alas, such is the nature of partisan bickering, you get lumped in with all sorts of folks. Remember last year when geezer quit for three months because someone used him and auraptor in a sentence? From here, they both look red, but i can see from where geezer is standing, rap would still look pretty red.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:14 PM

Riona.

This is the problem with anecdotal thinking, individual incidenta, sure, but these sorts of cases, rape-pregnancies, etc. Were already going on, and were, prior to the insitution of widescale elective abortions, a few hundred a year,

I'm more worried abiut the big molech owl thst eats a billion babies. Pirate News may be nuts, but his explanation is as good as any. For some reason, we have a society that killed a billion of its own people and we have a decent portion of the survivors banking to kill the next billion,

When I consider the number of escapes from genocide that were necessary for me to exist, in ireland, the holocaust, (even africa) and others in my family, their experience jn the cultural revolution, personally, those are horrifying storiesl statistically, they're also painting a scary picture, but not as scary as this one. My dad's family was part of around 200,000 czech casualties. The introduction of eugenics in 1990 to that homeland has killed ten times that many. There are half as many children in czech schools to day as when i first set foot in one. When i try to visualize that mentally, it's a scary picture.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:45 PM

Hey Niki, I think you took some of what was meant for frem's quoted statement and applied to your post. I also think I'm not quite sure where the argument is right now and the argument I was making might now be irrelevant.

I thought the debate was going to be over abortion and it's restrictions. Contraception and education would be separate issues if the debate was confined to abortion statistics. I guess if this thread is about how (all? some? most?) pro-lifers are following a master plan to force pregnancy on young women via denying contraception, education, and abortions (yet starting with abortion?) then it does seem a waste of time, for me anyway.

Hmmm... that last paragraph sounds insulting, and I don't really mean it to, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it at the moment...

Anyhow, I'll go point by point on my possibly irrelevant argument in case you're interested.

Quote:
it attacks a group of people based on their positions on a separate issue(s)

Not sure what you're saying there, but is it an "attack" if the facts PROVE they are imposing their will on others, whatever the issue? That's what it's about: Not people's positions, but people's ACTIONS in forcing that position on others.

If the abortion restrictions were the focus of the discussion, the manner these theoretical people felt on contraception or education was irrelevant because contraception and education is not part of the abortion restrictions.

Quote:
it's my understanding that restrictions placed on abortion do not apply to condoms

There you are wrong, in a way. The same segment of society which is utilizing their power to prevent abortions is often the same one working against sex education and utilizing methods like the birth-control pill to avoid contraception, among other things. Essentially these people are attacking ANY method of avoiding pregnancy. So it's all connected, as Byte said.

Same answer as above. Condoms are not in the abortion legislation.

Quote:
the few I've known to be both anti-abortion and anti-contraception have also been pro-adoption

Being pro-adoption and ACTING ON IT are two different things. Being anti-choice and acting on it is what's happening with the vast majority of pro-lifers who are attempting to force their will on others.

By this logic, anyone in favor of public health care should ACT ON IT by providing people with health care, regardless of resources or qualification. 'Acting on it' would certainly set a good example, but their argument shouldn't be contingent upon that.

This might be my last post in this thread, I'm walking that dangerous line again where I'm attempting to defend people I don't actually agree with. I just felt they were being slandered... or libeled I guess?... and had no one speaking for them.

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:23 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.

"... anyone in favor of public health care should ACT ON IT by providing people with health care .."

Money would be a good equivalent. How much does it cost to provide health care? How much does it cost to raise a child? If you are not going to personally 'walk the talk' how about 'putting your money where your mouth is'?

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

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:42 PM