Off Topic

[John B.]

I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.

Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
die!"

But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/world/asia/china-bans-fentanyl-trump.html Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Like the situation the past few years in Philippines[1],
where legal pharmaceutical stimulants were suddenly and
voluminously exceeded by imported methamphetamine from the
Norks, Red China and a new domestic industry, the bulk of
USA street Fentanyl is not rerouted anaesthetic
pharmaceuticals but rather imports from China and China
routed through Mexico.

This is not news:
https://www.news-herald.com/news/ohio/where-does-fentanyl-come-from-china-is-primary-source-in/article_333c7750-17c3-57b2-bbc2-f8a57599081b.html

Since the transfer cost of contraband is relatively fixed by
mass, imports tend to extremely powerful versions and
analogs, notably veterinary Carfentanyl

http://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/public-health-topics/fentanyl-and-carfentanil.aspx

[1] As with Mr Trump, Mr Duterte has reacted to a real
problem, You may disagree with either man's policy or style
or rhetoric, but the problems are indeed real. Facts are
stubborn things...

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

Oh, is that like China's compliance with pollution treaties?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chinas-role-in-climate-change-and-possibly-in-fighting-it.html

China will always talk a great game and sign anything, then
ignore any inconvenient agreements.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china

China theorists posit that Hitler annexed Poland and nobody
gave a damn. Italy slashed and burned through Ethiopia and
the League of Nations wrote resolutions, but zip for action.
Therefore... and here we are.

Did you notice that after huge Chinese payments to Turkey,
Pakistan, the Saudi family and other moslem states, that
only the US of A has said _anything_ about 1,000,000+ moslem
Uighers in concentration camps in East Turkistan (Western
China)?

They are not stupid. They know that they can generally get
away with anything, but 'generally' being not always. Which
is why the huge Chinese anti-Trump media push leading up to
2020.

[John B.]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:03:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Interesting. I did some more reading and it appears that fentanyl is
not even a controlled substance in much of Europe, but it is in the
U.S. and the largest source of illegal (in the U.S.) fentanyl is by
mail order from Chinese Web Sites.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Frankly while the "solution" may seem to be to get the host country to
ban the substance, whatever it may be, in reality that doesn't work.
In the recent past Opium was legally sold in Laos. You could go to the
market and buy it.

Than the U.S. beat the Laotians over the head and got them to outlaw
opium and its depravities and while it was no longer sold in the
market the production of opium and its depravities actually grew and
today it is estimated that Laos and Myanmar (not the major grower of
poppies) produced 893 metric tons of opium, in 2013, a 22 percent
growth from the previous year.

How can this be? Well Europe and the U.S. will buy, albeit illicitly,
just about all the opium products that a small country can produce and
not surprisingly to any student of economics where a market exists a
source will be found to supply it.

The current largest producer of poppies in the world is Afghanistan
with some 225,000 hectares ( 555,987 acres)in production.

What is the solution? Simple, penalize the users. If the demand is
reduced then the supply will also be reduced.

Is it politically possible in a country like the U.S.? Probably not.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2019 20:36:04 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 8/1/2019 8:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>> I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.
>>>
>>> Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
>>> sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
>>> die!"
>>>
>>> But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
>>> alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
>>> controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?
>>
>> See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/world/asia/china-bans-fentanyl-trump.html Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>
>Oh, is that like China's compliance with pollution treaties?
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chinas-role-in-climate-change-and-possibly-in-fighting-it.html
>
>China will always talk a great game and sign anything, then
>ignore any inconvenient agreements.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china
>
>China theorists posit that Hitler annexed Poland and nobody
>gave a damn. Italy slashed and burned through Ethiopia and
>the League of Nations wrote resolutions, but zip for action.
>Therefore... and here we are.

Yup. And a nationalistic movement (that happened to be communistic)
spent years fighting to free their country from foreign domination and
everyone said that they were bad guys.

As an aside the idea of democracy was abhorrent and literally
terrifying to most European governments in 1776 :-)

>Did you notice that after huge Chinese payments to Turkey,
>Pakistan, the Saudi family and other moslem states, that
>only the US of A has said _anything_ about 1,000,000+ moslem
>Uighers in concentration camps in East Turkistan (Western
>China)?

And hasn't the U.S. been shoveling money out all around the world
since WW II? Why shouldn't China do the same?

As for treatment of minority religious members take at look at Saudi
:-) On a purely rational basis the Saudis can hardly complain about
the treatment of anybody by any other nation.

>
>They are not stupid. They know that they can generally get
>away with anything, but 'generally' being not always. Which
>is why the huge Chinese anti-Trump media push leading up to
>2020.
--

cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Criminals operating in other nations will satisfy demand in the US. Maybe we should punish China for its lax oversight by inundating them with opium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

-- Jay Beattie

[John B.]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 21:31:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

I believe that modern day China controls the drug use in the country
by executions and forced "re-education" in a government "re-hab
center".

The "opium wars" were all the fault of the Chinese. After all they
demanded payment for Tea and Silk in silver coin, which was almost
literally bankrupting the British Empire.

Then, or course, those clever British chaps discovered that the opium
poppy was almost a weed in Bengal, India....
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide
heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have
merely kept the price up, encouraging supply.

[AMuzi]

Agreed. The Chinese are not stupid. They know that, and seem
to be emulating a very successful policy to weaken targeted
adversaries.

[Sir Ridesalot]

And thereby making the rich even richer as they deal it.

I heroin the MAIN reason the USA and Canada went into Afghanistan? LOL VBRG

Cheers

[John B.]

If heroin is the main reason that The U.S. and Canada went into
Afghanistan then they weren't very successful given that Afghanistan
is the single largest producer of Opium and its derivatives in the
world :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

What I meant was did those two countries go into Afghanistan to SECURE the opium poppy trade/source? VBEG

Cheers

[AMuzi]

I've heard that Afghanistan=>opium and Iraq=>oil for years
despite any rational evidence for either. The same wags used
to say Viet Nam=>oil too. pfft.

[AMuzi]

The Soviets, unencumbered by lawyers or reporters, made a
brutal effort in Afghanistan with worse results and also
brought home an opiate problem. More tar baby than treasure
trove IMHO.

[Sir Ridesalot]

"Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Nations".

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>
> The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide
> heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have
> merely kept the price up, encouraging supply.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The pure, theoretical, ivory tower solution is to legalise drugs, which instantly kills a lot of crime. I'm surprised that the Left, which also supports fewer people and abortion, hasn't yet twigged that cheap drugs is another eugenic solution to "too many people on Gaia." We'll see how the legalisation of cannabis works out.

Andre Jute
Not all solutions are equally moral

[Tom Kunich]

Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market including the strongest forms of Morphine.

Of course the drug dealers immediately started manufacturing it in pill form and with which it is extremely easy to misuse.

[Tom Kunich]

"We"? Are you a drug dealer?

[John B.]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot

Oh! I don't think so, or at last from what I've read, Afganstan is in
the feudal governmental stage of development with Lords, Dukes and
Counts, except that they call them War Lords, owning or controlling
much of the land outside the cities, rather like England in 1066.

And, since the Warlords control most of the country side, and the
population, i.e. soldiers, outside the cities anyone wanting to
control Afghanistan must be friendly with the Warlords and give them
guns to keep them strong and heaps of money to keep them friendly, and
not enquire too deeply into how they run their bailiwick.

And, perhaps the easiest money crop for the Warlords to grow, on their
land, is Opium.

As an aside, almost exactly as Laos in the old Air America days :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well whatever, but the largest cash crop, today, in Afghanistan is
Opium, and Hashish, or it's derivatives, and certainly oil is/was the
largest generator of foreign capital in Iraq. But Vietnam? Perhaps
rice?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot

During the 1800's Great Britain, perhaps the most powerful nation in
the world, fought a number of "wars" on the N.W. Frontier and in the
First Anglo-Afghan War G.B. invaded Afganstan, in 1839, with an army
of 21,000 men and some 38,000 Indian camp followers and 30,000 camels
to carry supplies. When the British withdrew, in 1842, the only
soldier to reach Jalalabad, British India, was Dr. William Brydon .

Who was it that said something about those who refuse to learn from
history are doomed to repeat it?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<slto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:03:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> > I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.
>> >
>> > Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
>> > sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
>> > die!"
>> >
>> > But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
>> > alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
>> > controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?
>>
>> See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/world/asia/china-bans-fentanyl-trump.html Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market including the strongest forms of Morphine.
>

I read somewhere that it is extremely effective and it has a very
short time to peak effect - ~ 5 minutes, and it's effects only last
about an hour and is seen as ideal for surgery and obstetrical
anesthesia.

As of 2017, fentanyl was the most widely used synthetic opioid in
medicine. And Fentanyl patches for cancer pain are on the WHO List of
Essential Medicines.

>Of course the drug dealers immediately started manufacturing it in pill form and with which it is extremely easy to misuse.

--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

So far, so good, dude.

My family owned a pharmacy that opened its doors in 1888 and had all sorts of ancient patent medicines stashed in the scary basement, many of which contained cocaine, heroine, marijuana -- and less fun stuff like strychnine and arsenic. My youth in the late '50s early '60s: https://storage.googleapis.com/hippostcard/p/cbced1249a3682b58e9b5216148838ac.jpg The old brick basement would give Edgar Allan Poe the willies.

There was, as you know, a long period when all the illegal drugs were not illegal. The opiate epidemic in the late 1880s that resulted in the eventual regulation of narcotics was barely worse than the current opioid epidemic. https://www.livescience.com/60559-opioid-crisis-echoes-epidemic-of-1800s.html Regulation has little effect on criminals and addicts, and now that we have an epidemic, doctors are refusing to prescribe opioids even when indicated. Compound fracture your leg and get an extra strength Tylenol because doctors are worried that they will get busted for prescribing opioids. The pendulum swing is bad for legitimate pain sufferers.

And to your point about liberals, unlike the conservatives who just go kill people https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc5MDg2NDMxNzQxNjYz/the-north-side-of-the-albert-p-murrah-f.jpg liberals simply allow people to choose death. Wouldn't you rather have the choice? Its all about making good choices. None of that nanny conservative government telling us what to do or not do. Liberals . . . protecting your right to choose death!

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:50:39 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

While it is difficult to determine accurately it is thought that
alcohol use may have actually increased after the Volstead Act was
enacted. Is the current bans on certain substances actually
contributing to their novelty status and actually increasing their
use? I'm thinking particularly of Cocaine which was, at one time, a
very up market drug and while the "gentry" might have objected to
stabbing themselves in the arm they certainly didn't seem to mind
snorting a little coke :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

I see in today's paper that the trendlines of rural and
urban OD deaths have crossed as now the old junkies, who
'know' a match head of 50% purity Heroin, are suddenly dying
of Fentanyl laced smack.

[AMuzi]

I don't think this issue cleaves well along usual right-left
political lines. You have F A Hayek, Allen Ginsberg, Milton
Friedman and Abbie Hoffman together on one side...

[Tosspot]

On 03/08/2019 01:00, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> During the 1800's Great Britain, perhaps the most powerful nation in
> the world, fought a number of "wars" on the N.W. Frontier and in the
> First Anglo-Afghan War G.B. invaded Afganstan, in 1839, with an army
> of 21,000 men and some 38,000 Indian camp followers and 30,000 camels
> to carry supplies. When the British withdrew, in 1842, the only
> soldier to reach Jalalabad, British India, was Dr. William Brydon .
>
> Who was it that said something about those who refuse to learn from
> history are doomed to repeat it?

The one thing history teaches us, is it's not worth teaching history :-)

[John B.]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:06:36 +0200, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, yes. The British Empire went back for "seconds" and "thirds"
and the final results were that Afghanistan won their complete
independence :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 2:33:19 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 8/2/2019 7:50 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide
> >>> heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have
> >>> merely kept the price up, encouraging supply.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Andrew Muzi
> >>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> >>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >>
> >> The pure, theoretical, ivory tower solution is to legalise drugs, which instantly kills a lot of crime. I'm surprised that the Left, which also supports fewer people and abortion, hasn't yet twigged that cheap drugs is another eugenic solution to "too many people on Gaia." We'll see how the legalisation of cannabis works out.
> >
> > So far, so good, dude.
> >
> > My family owned a pharmacy that opened its doors in 1888 and had all sorts of ancient patent medicines stashed in the scary basement, many of which contained cocaine, heroine, marijuana -- and less fun stuff like strychnine and arsenic. My youth in the late '50s early '60s: https://storage.googleapis.com/hippostcard/p/cbced1249a3682b58e9b5216148838ac.jpg The old brick basement would give Edgar Allan Poe the willies.
> >
> > There was, as you know, a long period when all the illegal drugs were not illegal. The opiate epidemic in the late 1880s that resulted in the eventual regulation of narcotics was barely worse than the current opioid epidemic. https://www.livescience.com/60559-opioid-crisis-echoes-epidemic-of-1800s.html Regulation has little effect on criminals and addicts, and now that we have an epidemic, doctors are refusing to prescribe opioids even when indicated. Compound fracture your leg and get an extra strength Tylenol because doctors are worried that they will get busted for prescribing opioids. The pendulum swing is bad for legitimate pain sufferers.

I've already had four offers from young doctors and researchers to "review" the drugs that keep me alive, none of them opioids. (For pain I take paracetamol, what Americans call -- my autopiler is being bolshie and won't let me type the word without turning it into something else.) I decline politely because I might need those people when they grow up a bit, but one wonders how mature they could be if they really think I will let them mess with the prescriptions of the best specialist available. These idealistic young people have heard of the opioid "crisis" and are now fanatical about "cutting down", of course on everybody else's painkillers.

> > And to your point about liberals, unlike the conservatives who just go kill people https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc5MDg2NDMxNzQxNjYz/the-north-side-of-the-albert-p-murrah-f.jpg liberals simply allow people to choose death.

The problem with liberals is that they don't let people choose death. What's it now, 3m abortions a year? And the "right to euthenasia" for the incurably ill is already in some places become the right of the authorities to kill people who don't want to die, and I'm not talking about criminals being killed to have their organs harvested in China, I'm talking about Belgium, and Canada, and soon the US, where it is in some places already legal to kill a baby born alive after efforts to abort it have failed. Murder is increasingly licensed, and certainly not by conservatives, which leaves only the caring, sharing so-called liberals.

I wish Americans wouldn't insist on ruining good words. I am a liberal who now has to capitalise the word, Liberal, to distinguish myself from those wretched American troublemakers, at the risk of being confused with some British limp wimps whose party is called "Liberal" but whose actions are not at all liberal.

>Wouldn't you rather have the choice? Its all about making good choices. None of that nanny conservative government telling us what to do or not do. Liberals . . . protecting your right to choose death!

I'm definitely for choice. But I spit on your "good" choices. They're your "good" choices, and you should keep them. I'll make my own.

As for "nanny conservative government" you slipped in, haven't you noticed Mr Trump's administration tearing up many thick books of regulations promulgated under Democrat governments? The current president is hardly a conservative -- he's a moderate Democrat who walked through the wrong caucus door -- but even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log, as we shall discover in November 2020.

>
> I don't think this issue cleaves well along usual right-left
> political lines. You have F A Hayek, Allen Ginsberg, Milton
> Friedman and Abbie Hoffman together on one side...

Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience.

The high concept of those people locked in a room, which will not be unlocked until they agree on something, offers huge entertainment potential. Let's throw in Linda Lovelace, just for fun.

> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andre Jute
There was a movie with Spencer Tracy about a jury of radically differentiated characters...

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:10:02 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 2:33:19 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 8/2/2019 7:50 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The net effect of the first hundred years of near-worldwide
> > >>> heroin ban hasn't worked out all that well. Seems to have
> > >>> merely kept the price up, encouraging supply.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Andrew Muzi
> > >>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > >>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > >>
> > >> The pure, theoretical, ivory tower solution is to legalise drugs, which instantly kills a lot of crime. I'm surprised that the Left, which also supports fewer people and abortion, hasn't yet twigged that cheap drugs is another eugenic solution to "too many people on Gaia." We'll see how the legalisation of cannabis works out.
> > >
> > > So far, so good, dude.
> > >
> > > My family owned a pharmacy that opened its doors in 1888 and had all sorts of ancient patent medicines stashed in the scary basement, many of which contained cocaine, heroine, marijuana -- and less fun stuff like strychnine and arsenic. My youth in the late '50s early '60s: https://storage.googleapis.com/hippostcard/p/cbced1249a3682b58e9b5216148838ac.jpg The old brick basement would give Edgar Allan Poe the willies.
> > >
> > > There was, as you know, a long period when all the illegal drugs were not illegal. The opiate epidemic in the late 1880s that resulted in the eventual regulation of narcotics was barely worse than the current opioid epidemic. https://www.livescience.com/60559-opioid-crisis-echoes-epidemic-of-1800s.html Regulation has little effect on criminals and addicts, and now that we have an epidemic, doctors are refusing to prescribe opioids even when indicated. Compound fracture your leg and get an extra strength Tylenol because doctors are worried that they will get busted for prescribing opioids. The pendulum swing is bad for legitimate pain sufferers.
>
> I've already had four offers from young doctors and researchers to "review" the drugs that keep me alive, none of them opioids. (For pain I take paracetamol, what Americans call -- my autopiler is being bolshie and won't let me type the word without turning it into something else.) I decline politely because I might need those people when they grow up a bit, but one wonders how mature they could be if they really think I will let them mess with the prescriptions of the best specialist available. These idealistic young people have heard of the opioid "crisis" and are now fanatical about "cutting down", of course on everybody else's painkillers.
>
> > > And to your point about liberals, unlike the conservatives who just go kill people https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc5MDg2NDMxNzQxNjYz/the-north-side-of-the-albert-p-murrah-f.jpg liberals simply allow people to choose death.
>
> The problem with liberals is that they don't let people choose death. What's it now, 3m abortions a year? And the "right to euthenasia" for the incurably ill is already in some places become the right of the authorities to kill people who don't want to die, and I'm not talking about criminals being killed to have their organs harvested in China, I'm talking about Belgium, and Canada, and soon the US, where it is in some places already legal to kill a baby born alive after efforts to abort it have failed. Murder is increasingly licensed, and certainly not by conservatives, which leaves only the caring, sharing so-called liberals.
>
> I wish Americans wouldn't insist on ruining good words. I am a liberal who now has to capitalise the word, Liberal, to distinguish myself from those wretched American troublemakers, at the risk of being confused with some British limp wimps whose party is called "Liberal" but whose actions are not at all liberal.

In the US, "left" or "liberal" is the new epithet for anyone who doesn't want to wear a MAGA hat or adopt Leviticus as statutory law. The term "conservative" is now used as short hand for a collection of moral judgments rather than a political philosophy or fiscal policy. None of these labels has its old meaning.

>
> >Wouldn't you rather have the choice? Its all about making good choices. None of that nanny conservative government telling us what to do or not do. Liberals . . . protecting your right to choose death!
>
> I'm definitely for choice. But I spit on your "good" choices. They're your "good" choices, and you should keep them. I'll make my own.
>
> As for "nanny conservative government" you slipped in, haven't you noticed Mr Trump's administration tearing up many thick books of regulations promulgated under Democrat governments?

How about "a few rules." The CFR is just as thick. It's not like rule-making has stopped, and in fact, it seems to be moving at the usual pace. BTW, regulations come, and regulations go -- regardless of who is the Twitterer in chief. https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/

The current president is hardly a conservative -- he's a moderate Democrat who walked through the wrong caucus door -- but even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log, as we shall discover in November 2020.

Somewhat true. One hopes for a sane option.

> >
> > I don't think this issue cleaves well along usual right-left
> > political lines. You have F A Hayek, Allen Ginsberg, Milton
> > Friedman and Abbie Hoffman together on one side...
>
> Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state." Well, you can't have it both ways. If you want to prohibit abortion, you better have a plan for that child once born. Perhaps we can send them all to Ireland. How's space looking at your place?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

> Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I'm talking about the Christian right and its approach to state welfare. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1941&context=jssw
This has nothing to do with charitable giving -- which is great -- but accounts for a small fraction of total welfare costs.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

You're still wrong when you include Catholics in "without regard to what
becomes of the fetus once born." You're mistakenly treating Catholics as
one unified bloc marching in step. And you're ignoring the Church's
general attitude toward social safety nets, as well as the immense
(really, unequaled) amount of charity work done by institutions and
people connected with the Church.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy before a child is born is, by definition, an abortion. Legislatures have decided at what point in gestation an abortion amounts to a homicide or at least when it justifies some enhanced penalty for the assault on the mother. In Oregon, for example, you can't be convicted of murdering a human before it is born. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.005 There is an enhanced penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.185


BTW, you're right about the Catholic charities. I'm not sure if the church has any doctrine requiring the support of orphaned children, but they do have a long history of running orphanages -- for better or worse. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/orphanage-reactions Catholic charities, and in fact all religious charities combined, provide a tiny fraction of all social services. I'm all for charities, but when Trump suggested that federal welfare could be assumed by charities, that was debunked in about a second.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Radey Shouman]

Tom Kunich <slto...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:03:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> > I know this is off topic but I don't find the answer anywhere else.
>> >
>> > Today's news has Pres. Trump accusing the Chinese of continuing to
>> > sell fentanyl to the United States -- "and many Americans continue to
>> > die!"
>> >
>> > But my research shows that fentanyl is a medical drug for the
>> > alleviation of severe pain and as such I would assume to be a
>> > controlled substance. How than, "many Americans continue to die!" ?
>>
>> See
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/world/asia/china-bans-fentanyl-trump.html
>> Fentanyl and all its variants are now controlled substances in China
>> which, of course, does not stop illegal trade.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Jay, Fentanyl was developed to be used as an injectable painkiller
> when all else fails. The people in the final stages of cancer and the
> like do not respond much to most of the pain killers on the market
> including the strongest forms of Morphine.

I'm not sure what the idea was when it was developed, but fentanyl is
widely used for pain relief in transdermal patches. You can quite
easily absorb enough narcotic to light you right up from a patch smaller
than a postage stamp applied to your skin. Put a few on and you might
absorb a lethal dose.

It is useful, but I have to wonder if humanity would not have been
better off just liberalizing the use of heroin, which works much the
same way but is easier to titrate.

[AMuzi]

Because under several State statutes, killing a pregnant
woman is a double homicide.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

There was a federal statute but I don't know if it's current.

[AMuzi]

Indeed they are as riven a group as bicyclists, the
conservative Catholics and the wacko commies such as Francis
the Argentine.

celebrate diversity! and oh, do they ever.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 5:19:52 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...
>
> Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Er, Franki-boy, are you absolutely sure you want to agree with the sentence you quote? Jay didn't write it. I wrote it. And you agreed to it. Here is the full sentence for context of what you agreed to:

"The current president is hardly a conservative -- he's a moderate Democrat who walked through the wrong caucus door -- but even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log, as we shall discover in November 2020."

Andre Jute
When the wrong people start agreeing with me, it is time to consider whether I thought deeply enough about the matter

[AMuzi]

And of late police dogs die sniffing it and officers with
trace contact have passed out.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, atheists, various pagans, etc.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2019 8:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 5:14:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> ... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.
>>>>
>>>>> Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
>>>> many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
>>>> there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.
>>>
>>> I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
>>> not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?
>>
>> And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
>> others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
>> should it be called?
>
> Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy before a child is born is, by definition, an abortion. Legislatures have decided at what point in gestation an abortion amounts

to a homicide...

A fine legal definition. I was responding to John's point, that if the
child can't survive outside the womb it can't be called murder. It
seemed natural to ask what if it _could_ survive outside the womb.

And I suppose lots of philosophical debates could be simplistically shut
down if the rule is "just refer to a dictionary or a law book."

Yet the questions remain. That argument technique didn't work out for
those in favor of slavery, those against gay marriage, etc.

> BTW, you're right about the Catholic charities.

Thanks.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Not to mention the classic Hippocratic oath until very recently.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:55:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:10:02 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience.
>
> Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder.

That's a not particularly bright sophism which has the subtext, Man is just another animal, so it is all right to kill human babies in the womb for veal. Try a Baby Schnitzel made with Emmenthaler and Parma ham. Enjoy!

Anyone with principles knows killing people is wrong. Foetuses are people by any definition.

>Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

Does it hurt to blow clear Perspex through your ass when you hoped to blow obscuring smoke?

>Well, you can't have it both ways.

It's not me trying to have it both ways, it's the Democrat Party, the feminists, NARAL, the abortionist themselves, and the other eugenicists, all of them aborting overwhelmingly black babies. The whole affair is the racist culmination of Margaret Sanger's eugenic nightmare of killing the underclasses like vermin, a fine case of the hypocrisy of the Left in trying to have their murderous cake and eat it too or, in your phrase, having it both ways.

And that counts double for those elements of the Left who have campaigned for both abortion and the abolition of the death penalty for criminals.

Personally, I think that anyone who stays in the Democrat Party, or contributes money to it since several years ago, ar passes the litmus test for membership of unquestioning support for abortion right up to and after birth, is by definition a murderer. But that's just me, and many tens of millions of other people with their brains in gear, and their principles held clearly.

> If you want to prohibit abortion, you better have a plan for that child once born.

How about welfare arrangements that don't destroy families, as The Great Society has broken up two generations of black families.

>Perhaps we can send them all to Ireland. How's space looking at your place?

You're murdering American babies to make space for uninvited invaders? And you want the Irish to help out by taking some of your people so you can take in more uninvited invaders?

All these abortions have made the defenders of abortion quite irrational, and that's putting it mildly. I think you're all certifiable.

The US has plenty of space, and jobs too, for its own children. Just stop the nonsense of an open border and decriminalising illegal entry.

> -- Jay Beattie.

And stop hating Americans just because they will be born Americans; that's exactly ground zero for anti-semitism, with American foetuses substituted for Jews. Even Stalin, outside wartime, never killed as many of his own people as the Americans do every year by abortion.

Some people deserve to die. They include abortionists and abortion fanatics, among several classes of violent criminals. They do not include babies in the womb or out of it.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the flack job the Democrat Party has done in normalising a vicious, continuing mass murder.

Andre Jute
Let's celebrate diverse--- er, near-homogeneity in abortions!

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:43:12 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:55:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:10:02 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > Licensed murder on the scale it is committed every year in America isn't a partisan matter for anyone who has a conscience.
> >
> > Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder.
>
> That's a not particularly bright sophism which has the subtext, Man is just another animal, so it is all right to kill human babies in the womb for veal. Try a Baby Schnitzel made with Emmenthaler and Parma ham. Enjoy!
>
> Anyone with principles knows killing people is wrong. Foetuses are people by any definition.

Really? As a nation, we kill people all the time. A fetus is not a person by many definitions.

>
> >Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."
>
> Does it hurt to blow clear Perspex through your ass when you hoped to blow obscuring smoke?

> >Well, you can't have it both ways.
>
> It's not me trying to have it both ways, it's the Democrat Party, the feminists, NARAL, the abortionist themselves, and the other eugenicists, all of them aborting overwhelmingly black babies. The whole affair is the racist culmination of Margaret Sanger's eugenic nightmare of killing the underclasses like vermin, a fine case of the hypocrisy of the Left in trying to have their murderous cake and eat it too or, in your phrase, having it both ways.
>
> And that counts double for those elements of the Left who have campaigned for both abortion and the abolition of the death penalty for criminals.
>
> Personally, I think that anyone who stays in the Democrat Party, or contributes money to it since several years ago, ar passes the litmus test for membership of unquestioning support for abortion right up to and after birth, is by definition a murderer. But that's just me, and many tens of millions of other people with their brains in gear, and their principles held clearly.
>
> > If you want to prohibit abortion, you better have a plan for that child once born.
>
> How about welfare arrangements that don't destroy families, as The Great Society has broken up two generations of black families.
>
> >Perhaps we can send them all to Ireland. How's space looking at your place?
>
> You're murdering American babies to make space for uninvited invaders? And you want the Irish to help out by taking some of your people so you can take in more uninvited invaders?
>
> All these abortions have made the defenders of abortion quite irrational, and that's putting it mildly. I think you're all certifiable.
>
> The US has plenty of space, and jobs too, for its own children. Just stop the nonsense of an open border and decriminalising illegal entry.
>
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> And stop hating Americans just because they will be born Americans; that's exactly ground zero for anti-semitism, with American foetuses substituted for Jews. Even Stalin, outside wartime, never killed as many of his own people as the Americans do every year by abortion.
>
> Some people deserve to die. They include abortionists and abortion fanatics, among several classes of violent criminals. They do not include babies in the womb or out of it.

Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses? Will there be criminal prosecution of women who induce an abortion by over-exercise or misoprostol? Go get 'em Ayatollah Andre! Between writing dime novels, you can exact retribution for all the unborn babies.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

From what I read you are correct in the sense of, one might say, the
legal use of fentanyl, but the current U.S. claim seems to be that
illegal users of fentanyl are simply ordering it from (mainly) Chinese
Web Sites and getting it delivered to their door.

Again from my reading, something like 20,000 individuals are dying
from the illegal procurement and use of fentanyl and the U.S. wants
China to do something about it.

But you are correct, simply legalize the use of drugs and the price
goes down and illegal procurement immediately becomes a mote subject.

As an example, currently the "wholesale" price of methamphetamine
tablets on the Thai/Myanmar border is roughly 1/3- 1/2 the "wholesale"
price in Bangkok and in consequence the police daily capture pickup
truck loads of what the Thai's call "Ya Ba" (crazy medicine) on the
way to the big city. Multi million tablet intercepts are common these
days. The price varies but an "average" price is probably in the TB
200 - 300 per tab, about $6.60 -$10.00.

If Ya Ba was legalized tomorrow the retail price might become as low
as 30 baht ($1.00) each.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski

>knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

Bullshit. I want to make an example of them with the full panoply of the law, starting with a grand jury to indite them, television in court, a hardass hanging judge who tells the lawyers they have to take the first jury panel they get, a hungry prosecutor with a pretty sidekick, and did I yet say a hanging judge? A public execution, of course. A dead abortionist is just revenge, a publicly executed abortionist is a lesson in consequences.

≥ Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

No, of course there will be exceptions in the law. What the hell is wrong with you, Jay?

>Will there be criminal prosecution of women who induce an abortion by over-exercise or misoprostol?

I don't know. Such details are for elected lawmakers to decide. Did you Bar Exam have a civics section?

>Go get 'em Ayatollah Andre!

Fuck you and the horse you rode.

>Between writing dime novels,

I'd be delighted to write dime novels but it's an amateur wet dream that we choose our place on the literary spectrum.Mine was chosen decades ago by the quality of my books and the position of my publishers at the head of the literary food chain. It's a Borg situation, futile to resist.

>you can exact retribution for all the unborn babies.

I understand there's an element of retribution in justice, but public lawful justice is more productive in the long term. Especially if we can turn it into a spectacle.

Andre Jute
Down with Telemachus!

[news18]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 12:19:20 +0700, John B. wrote:


> Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the pagans
> I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been cannibals,
> required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

So they practised both forms of oral conversion?

[Sepp Ruf]

John B. wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:

>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote

>>>> On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:

>>>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote

Conspicuously leaving out the messy part of killing any infidel opposed to
becoming "a Moslem country." At least read Chapter 5, Frank:

<https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PDF-Look-Inside/Sharia_Non-Muslim_look_inside.pdf>

[John B.]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:44:49 +0200, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

Ah but the Holy Koran is quite explicit that infidels may reside in
the kingdom, and pay a tax. And Shara quite specifically states that
none Moslems residing under Islamic rule had the status of dhimmi,
which entailed a number of protections, restrictions, freedoms and
legal inequalities, including payment of the jizya tax


--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I'm kind of guessing here, Andre, but I suspect that "Cold War, Hot Passion" does not put you or your publisher(s) at the head of the literary food chain. Maybe "Sinkhole" or "Stieg Larssen, Man, Myth & Mistress," but I don't know. I haven't read either, but as for the latter book, I do like the cover art with the dragon tattooed butt-cheeks (must have been painful sitting after that tattoo session). http://coolmainpress.com/andrejute.html BTW, the dragon tattoo was not on Lisbeth's butt -- as far as I know, but maybe the cover picture is a reference to some other dragon tattoo.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike
off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.
Quran 8:12

Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the
places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than
carnage.
Quran 2:191

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever
you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush
everywhere for them.
Quran 9:51

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2019 9:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 10:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:31:00 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:43:12 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And stop hating Americans just because they will be born Americans; that's exactly ground zero for anti-semitism, with American foetuses substituted for Jews. Even Stalin, outside wartime, never killed as many of his own people as the Americans do every year by abortion.
>>>>
>>>> Some people deserve to die. They include abortionists and abortion fanatics, among several classes of violent criminals. They do not include babies in the womb or out of it.
>>>
>>> Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers?
>>
>> Bullshit. I want to make an example of them with the full panoply of the law, starting with a grand jury to indite them, television in court, a hardass hanging judge who tells the lawyers they have to take the first jury panel they get, a hungry prosecutor with a pretty sidekick, and did I yet say a hanging judge? A public execution, of course. A dead abortionist is just revenge, a publicly executed abortionist is a lesson in consequences.
>>

>> ≥ Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

>>
>> No, of course there will be exceptions in the law. What the hell is wrong with you, Jay?
>>
>>> Will there be criminal prosecution of women who induce an abortion by over-exercise or misoprostol?
>>
>> I don't know. Such details are for elected lawmakers to decide. Did you Bar Exam have a civics section?
>>
>>> Go get 'em Ayatollah Andre!
>>
>> Fuck you and the horse you rode.
>>
>>> Between writing dime novels,
>>
>> I'd be delighted to write dime novels but it's an amateur wet dream that we choose our place on the literary spectrum.Mine was chosen decades ago by the quality of my books and the position of my publishers at the head of the literary food chain. It's a Borg situation, futile to resist.
>>
>>> you can exact retribution for all the unborn babies.
>>
>> I understand there's an element of retribution in justice, but public lawful justice is more productive in the long term. Especially if we can turn it into a spectacle.
>>
>>
> I'm kind of guessing here, Andre, but I suspect that "Cold War, Hot Passion" does not put you or your publisher(s) at the head of the literary food chain. Maybe "Sinkhole" or "Stieg Larssen, Man, Myth & Mistress," but I don't know. I haven't read either, but as for the latter book, I do like the cover art with the dragon tattooed butt-cheeks (must have been painful sitting after that tattoo session). http://coolmainpress.com/andrejute.html BTW, the dragon tattoo was not on Lisbeth's butt -- as far as I know, but maybe the cover picture is a reference to some other dragon tattoo.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

I have no idea about those works but authors of my
acquaintance roll their eyes when asked about cover art
selected and produced by their publishers.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
> Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think you meant that for John. I already knew that, and it's part of
my argument.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Fentanyl overdoses are a significant problem where I live. My
impression is that most users don't know whether they're getting heroin
or fentanyl of some mixture of the two. Dealers don't want to kill off
paying customers, but not being analytical chemists they're not that
good at dealing with doses in the micrograms, particularly after several
stages of distribution.

There are probably some users who order directly from China, but those
are very much in the minority.

I don't know whether the ultimate source of most fentanyl on US streets
is China; it does seem possible.

> Again from my reading, something like 20,000 individuals are dying
> from the illegal procurement and use of fentanyl and the U.S. wants
> China to do something about it.
>
> But you are correct, simply legalize the use of drugs and the price
> goes down and illegal procurement immediately becomes a mote subject.

I was wondering aloud whether fentanyl would even have been developed if
legal heroin had continued to be easily available. The big reason to
promote new narcotics in the legal market is just that they are new, and
subject to patents and other legal means to monopoly. Makes great sense
for drug companies, not so much for either medical or recreational
users.

> As an example, currently the "wholesale" price of methamphetamine
> tablets on the Thai/Myanmar border is roughly 1/3- 1/2 the "wholesale"
> price in Bangkok and in consequence the police daily capture pickup
> truck loads of what the Thai's call "Ya Ba" (crazy medicine) on the
> way to the big city. Multi million tablet intercepts are common these
> days. The price varies but an "average" price is probably in the TB
> 200 - 300 per tab, about $6.60 -$10.00.
>
> If Ya Ba was legalized tomorrow the retail price might become as low
> as 30 baht ($1.00) each.
> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.
>

--

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 12:19:20 +0700, John B.

<jbsl...@fictitious.site> wrote:

> Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
> anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Anti-theists posing at atheists are another matter. An antitheist on
some newsgroup -- I've long since forgotten the details -- thought it
"child abuse" that the children of theists are not taken from their
parents and brought up in the one true belief.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[John B.]

Yup, and the Holy Bible says the following merit the death sentence:

Having homosexual intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus
20:13).
Committing adultery between a man and a woman (Leviticus 20:10-12,
Deuteronomy 22:22).
Lying about virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).[4]
Being one of the majority of women who don't bleed when losing their
virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20)
Being the daughter of a priest and practicing prostitution (Leviticus
21:9).
Raping an engaged female virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25).
If an engaged female virgin, being raped in a city (Deuteronomy
22:23-27).
Being male and practicing bestiality (Leviticus 20:15).
Being female and practicing bestiality (Leviticus 20:16).
Having sex with your father's wife (Leviticus 20:20).
Having sex with your daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:30).
Having incestual sex (Leviticus 20:17).
Marrying a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 20:14).
Having sex with a woman who is menstruating (Leviticus 20:18).
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems, but
does this somehow negate the Crusader deliberate slaughter of
essentially the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099. Or the so
called "Inquisition", first established in Languedoc (south of France)
in 1184 and formally ended in the mid 19th century.
Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 12:02:43 -0400, Radey Shouman

Read up ion it. Fentanyl was originally developed for use in surgery
and was, at least for a time, the preferred surgical or obstetrical
anesthesia.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:36:05 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>
> Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
> entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.

The Holocaust wasn't "so-called"; it is an historical, meticulously documented event, not least by its perpetrators, master bookkeepers. And scare-quotes around the noun also give the impression you're a Holocaust denier. I don't imagine that was your intention. If that was your intention, keep it to yourself because many places in the world now Holocaust denial is punishable legal transgression.

The Nazis weren't even "nominally" Christians. They explicit rejected Christianity in favour of a pagan national connection to nature. For instance, the title among his many titles that Herman Goering was most proud of was 'Huntsman of Germany", which put him in charge of all the forests -- I kid you not. Religion in Germany under the Nazis wasn't exactly a fringe activity, but it played no part in the policies of the German state* -- contrast for instance Ireland, where the Catholic church, which had no official position, was a de facto arm of government until the 1980s.

*It is argued that Vatican and the Curia played the part of the blind monkeys, that they were fellow-travellers and collaborators with the Nazis; their defender claim they were helping to save Jews.

Andre Jute
Welcome, Trivia!

[Ralph Barone]

I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old Testament
writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the fuck up”.

[AMuzi]

I missed the 'kill the infidels' part of Torah. Could you
find that please?

[AMuzi]

for Buddhist vs Hindu the Sri Lanka war comes readily to mind.

[news18]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 09:44:10 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


>>
> I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their
> heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.
> Quran 8:12
>
> Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from
> which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.
> Quran 2:191
>
> When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find
> them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
> Quran 9:51

And is not the equivalent shit in the "Christian bible"?

[news18]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


> I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
> Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the fuck
> up”.

As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

[news18]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


> The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
> words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
> competently use birth control.

All forms of birtgh control have failure rates.

> Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
> their pleasure for a moment.

Or live in perpetual agony from the side effects of some forms of birth
control.

>
> When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
> simple - and a bit barbaric.

Shrug, as opposed to the number that are naturally aborted?

[jbeattie]

Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless. What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

If this is to justify your claim about "The uniquely Christian concept

that one should run about and force their neighbors to conform to

"their" belief..."

... then it's a massive fail! All those passages predate Christianity.
They apply more properly to the Jews of that era.

Yes, I'm aware that some Christians still (astoundingly) claim that
every word in the Old Testament is still true and literally applicable.
But I can assure that most Christians do not hold that attitude.

Again, Christians are a varied lot. Don't treat them as a monolithic bunch.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
>>> to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
>>> only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
>>> herring.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
>>> words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
>>> competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
>>> their pleasure for a moment.
>>>
>>> When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
>>> simple - and a bit barbaric.
>>
>> While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
>> details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
>> conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
>> girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.
>
> Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.
>
> And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.

Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?

> What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.

And that site mentions the fact that "The most common gestational limit
for countries in this category is 12 weeks." That's putting it rather
mildly. Only a very few (fewer than 10) countries allow abortions as
late as the U.S. Yes, it varies state by state, but there are U.S.
states with no real gestational limits. Again, personal responsibility
seems hardly worth considering.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

> talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems...

No, that's not what I meant.

You claimed that such behavior was "uniquely Christian." It's not,
absolutely not. As I hinted, there are _many_ counterexamples.

Do look up the hindu treatment of buddhists for just one counterexample.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

It is "history" of a sort. Not some sort of You Tube show. It actually
happened and "lightening up", or perhaps denial is a more cognizant
term, won't mean that it didn't happen..
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Ah Frank, are you trying a "Tom", an end run about history?

My post was in reply to the two quotes from the Koran, directly above
my post.

>Yes, I'm aware that some Christians still (astoundingly) claim that
>every word in the Old Testament is still true and literally applicable.
>But I can assure that most Christians do not hold that attitude.
>
>Again, Christians are a varied lot. Don't treat them as a monolithic bunch.

Which has little to do with the various Christian (would you say
"vendettas") and drive to convert everyone to their beliefs.

(Which given the breadth and variety of belief in those professing to
be "Christians" is a bit confusing to the poor infidel)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:54:00 -0000 (UTC), news18 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

Well, technically it was some of the Jewish holy books but there is
some even better stuff in the early books :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Ah yes, the battle between native Sri Lankans and illegal immigrants.
If they only have had a guy with a blond comb-over to built a wall the
"war" would have never been fought. :-)

But historically
Tamil-speaking Hindus agitated for greater autonomy. In 1973 and
demanded an independent state in their area.

The request for an independent state was denied by the ruling majority
Singhalese (Buddhist) community.

Sounds a bit like the U.S. Civil War, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:17:54 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?
>> >
>> >FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
>> >to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
>> >only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
>> >herring.
>> >
>> >The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
>> >words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
>> >competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
>> >their pleasure for a moment.
>> >
>> >When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
>> >simple - and a bit barbaric.
>>
>> While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
>> details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
>> conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
>> girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.
>
>Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

Apparently the "operation" is not that delicate, nor dangerous, when
performed by professional. And in some of the more primitive countries
that I've lived in there are no laws against it so actual licensed
doctors perform the operation.

>And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless. What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

OK, you’re correct there. It is history and there’s no use telling the
authors of the Old Testament to lighten up. However, those who read it
nowadays and take it literally should perhaps “lighten the fuck up”.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:02:55 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone

>>> writers) could have benefited by ?just lightening the fuck up?.

>>
>> It is "history" of a sort. Not some sort of You Tube show. It actually
>> happened and "lightening up", or perhaps denial is a more cognizant
>> term, won't mean that it didn't happen..
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>>
>
>OK, you’re correct there. It is history and there’s no use telling the
>authors of the Old Testament to lighten up. However, those who read it
>nowadays and take it literally should perhaps “lighten the fuck up”.

Well they have lightened up, haven't they :-) But if one should
lighten up than where are you? You have your "Holy Books" and you now
elect to obey only some of the commandments in them? Is your religion
still the same religion? Or have you created an entirely new religion
based not on the alleged Word of God but simply on the portions which
you find palatable today. Then, what about tomorrow?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.

>
> > What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.
>
> So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
> for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
> of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.

Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.

>
> And that site mentions the fact that "The most common gestational limit
> for countries in this category is 12 weeks." That's putting it rather
> mildly. Only a very few (fewer than 10) countries allow abortions as
> late as the U.S. Yes, it varies state by state, but there are U.S.
> states with no real gestational limits. Again, personal responsibility
> seems hardly worth considering.

Assuming the state has taken an entirely hands-off approach, late stage abortions usually come down to availability of doctors who will perform the procedure and standard of care.

>
> Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
> society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
> responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
> per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
> "health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
> pill or a condom, so kill it."

We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal. You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

John, your view really is distorted on this issue.

First, for context, read Jared Diamond's book _The World Until
Yesterday_. It notes that our current society is extremely weird - that
for 99.9% of the human race's existence things were much, much
different, much more brutal. We lived in overtly tribal societies in
which tribes were by default violent toward other tribes. As he put it,
if two men happened to meet each other alone in the wilderness, they
would need an excuse to _not_ try to kill one another. Murder was
common, tribes routinely took others as slaves, women were often treated
as property, violence was normal.

Progress came slowly. Very gradually, violence became legally
restricted. One step was the development of written laws or rules, so
those in power at any moment were less likely to govern by whim. The
passages you're quoting are from that early time, and may have been an
improvement on what came before.

But another big step was the concept that each individual (Even women!
Even slaves! Even those from other tribes, like for example Samaritans!)
has value. And the concept that violence should not necessarily be
answered with more violence - that enemies should be treated with mercy.

Those ideas were popularized by the followers of a guy from Nazareth who
lived long after the writings you quote. Those followers said he had
arranged a sort of New Deal. They documented it in the "New Testament."

It hasn't worked out perfectly - but then, it hasn't been perfectly
applied. But without it, I think it's likely that slavery would still be
common everywhere. Women would still be treated like property, perhaps
not even allowed to leave the home. (Read about the ancient Greeks'
treatment of women.) Conquered nations like Germany and Japan would have
been razed to the ground or starved to death, like Stalin did to the
Ukraine.

Look at the big picture, going back at least 50,000 years. Put things in
context.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

John, YOU are trying to deflect attention from your blatant mistake -
claiming that forcing ones beliefs is "UNIQUELY Christian." (My emphasis.)

If you would just admit the word "uniquely" was wrong, we can save much
time and typing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

People of all religions have always done bad things to each other, but I
thought John's original claim was that Christians were unique in trying
to force their neighbors to conform to their own beliefs. He has a bit
of a point. Christianity and Islam are both evangelistic religions --
believers have a duty to try to spread the faith. Judaism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Shintoism and many others, so far as I know, do not have such
a requirement.

Islam and Christianity are actually very similar, which, I suppose, is
why their adherents get along so well with each other.

During the past 1000 years or so, it seems clear to me that Christians,
particularly Western Christians, have had the lion's share of success in
spreading their religion by force.

[Ralph Barone]

Atheist. Next question...

[Frank Krygowski]

Please recognize what you said above: "... moralizing out people's
sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless." And yet we DO
have laws against many sexual practices like ones you named: incest,
rape, public indecency, etc. You argue against yourself.

>>> What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.
>>
>> So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
>> for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
>> of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.
>
> Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.

First, please understand my views. I've never said we should outlaw the
use of helmets (which would be the true opposite of a MHL), and I've
never said we should outlaw all abortions.

But "most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion"
only up to about 12 weeks into the pregnancy, although the laws vary
based on reasons for the request and other factors. The U.S. is in a
very tiny minority saying, in effect, "any time, for any reason." That
is cavalier by the definition.

>>
>> Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
>> society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
>> responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
>> per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
>> "health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
>> pill or a condom, so kill it."
>
> We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal.

Yes, and there have always been murder, and rape, and theft, and
assault, and blackmail, etc. Yet we do have laws that attempt to prevent
them. Those laws almost certainly do reduce them.

> You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because
Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

Jay, condoms don't break often enough to generate hundreds of thousands
of abortion requests per year. If they did, the manufacturers would have
long ago been sued out of business. The vast majority of those requests
come because birth control was deliberately not used. They are far more
often the result of "Oh, what the hell, let's do it." It's the opposite
of personal responsibility.

Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd say a person can't have a "bit of a point" when he uses an absolute
like "unique." Something is either unique, or it's not. It's a binary
choice.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

So what? The pregnancy happened. What's next? Forced motherhood? Unwanted children? Public stoning?

You have no end-game except to moralize about lack of self-control and personal responsibility. And if the mother is some god-forsaken harlot who lacks any self-control, what does that tell you about her ability to bear or raise a child?

> Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude.

Most industrialized nations do. Pick one and look at the law and practice. Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2009/10/20/reference/abortion-still-key-birth-control/#.XUhtFFVKiUk

England, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

Risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman - In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance, Lord Justice Laws said: "There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail."

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pick any place you might actually want to live. France is nice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Netherlands?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Netherlands

And what is cavalier about recognizing a woman's right to control her body during the first trimester? Must the state be involved in every decision about reproduction?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 09:44:10 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 8/4/2019 4:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:44:49 +0200, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>

> >>> John B. wrote:

> >>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:

> >>>>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote

> >>>>>>> On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote

You seem to have a great deal of trouble separating the old from the new testament. Exactly why is that?

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 5:51:37 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

> On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:36:05 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
> > entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.
>

> The Holocaust wasn't "so-called"; it is an historical, meticulously documented event, not least by its perpetrators, master bookkeepers. And scare-quotes around the noun also give the impression you're a Holocaust denier. I don't imagine that was your intention. If that was your intention, keep it to yourself because many places in the world now Holocaust denial is punishable legal transgression.
>
> The Nazis weren't even "nominally" Christians. They explicit rejected Christianity in favour of a pagan national connection to nature. For instance, the title among his many titles that Herman Goering was most proud of was 'Huntsman of Germany", which put him in charge of all the forests -- I kid you not. Religion in Germany under the Nazis wasn't exactly a fringe activity, but it played no part in the policies of the German state* -- contrast for instance Ireland, where the Catholic church, which had no official position, was a de facto arm of government until the 1980s.
>
> *It is argued that Vatican and the Curia played the part of the blind monkeys, that they were fellow-travellers and collaborators with the Nazis; their defender claim they were helping to save Jews.
>
> Andre Jute
> Welcome, Trivia!

To people like John, mass murder of the sort of people you don't like is perfectly OK.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:

> I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old Testament

> writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the fuck up”.

I think that you would benefit by knowing that those rules only applied to Jews. To others God would take care of it.

[Tom Kunich]

What in the hell are you talking about Jay? Do NOT moralize to us. You people who would stop the execution of mass murderers tell us that a living baby is OK to be frozen to death. From the second that a baby's heart starts beating that is a separate individual and not a "part of the mother" any more than a birthed baby cannot independently survive. I'm also getting tired of people passing laws against people who leave their children in their cars while they run into a coffee shop for a take away.

Take your leftist bullshit elsewhere.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:35:41 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

Gentle folks get carried away in the back of Mercedes :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

You are going all around Robin Hood's barn to say the same thing that
I did.

A bunch of guys get together and start a religion and over the years
innumerable other people decide that they don't like some of the rules
and regulations and change them to fit their own ideas - Did God
really say you had to eat fish on Friday? Or that only an archaic
Italian language was fit for muttering prayers to God?

So is it the same religion?

Or even more bizarre, a bunch of guys decide that the "god" discovered
by an old guy named Abraham is the one true god. Then a second group
of guys come along and say, "Yes Sir!" Old Abe had the right idea and
start building temples to Abe's God and than amazingly a third bunch
arrive on the scene and start worshiping the God of Abraham.... And
than they take to killing each other in the name of God and have been
doing so for hundred's of years.
--

Cheers,

John B.