Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Note to Republicans for Senate in regards to abortion after rape.
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Garner
Nov 6, 2012, 10:26:18 PM11/6/12
to
If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
Dem_0_Rats
Nov 6, 2012, 10:31:49 PM11/6/12
to
On 11/6/2012 8:26 PM, Frank Garner wrote:
> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
> you are for it.
Akin is a moron, he deserved to lose.
> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
> you are for it.
elizabeth
Nov 7, 2012, 3:06:20 PM11/7/12
to
why they lost.
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 7, 2012, 6:22:07 PM11/7/12
to
From Frank Garner:
Take Mourdock in Indiana. His exact quote was:
"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1SEq2o9LY)
Does this mean that he believes that God wants women to be raped and impregnated? After his grossly awkward expression of his stand, he still got 44.4% of the popular vote in Indiana. Can we infer that 44.4% of Indiana citizens uphold a belief that God wants women to be raped and impregnated?
No.
People in Indiana don't believe that, and neither does Mourdock - regardless of what the media firestorm might have us believe.
Here is what I see Mourdock's position to be:
"God smiles on every single baby that is born. Is there a single person who would want our government to make it legal for a mother to kill her baby after it is born? No, not at all. Well there are many of us who go further by upholding the view that human life begins at conception. Because of that belief, we oppose making it legal for a woman to kill that life within her womb. The only exception we have to that is when it is the very life of the mother being threatened. Certainly when a woman is raped, she did not ask for that. It is an abhorrent act. But let's not forget that the newly conceived life did not ask for it either. This is a very difficult issue that I have struggled with for a long time, but each time I find in favor of protecting that new life. When that baby is born, God will smile upon it as with every other baby, regardless of any horrible violence that may have occurred up to that point. One of the most important roles that government does is to protect entities that are too weak to protect themselves. As your Senator, I will stand firm in my position to protect unborn human life."
Here is the follow-up comments he had in his effort to clarify his original statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AwkwCL6_M
Mourdock's position is not as ridiculous when people make the extra effort to try to understand exactly what he was trying to say. He had poorly chosen words that could easily have been misinterpreted to say that he believes God intends rape, and rape babies. But that is completely the opposite of what he believes. His core belief is that he values human life and intends to protect it, even when that life has not been birthed yet.
I see that to be a very reasonable and compassionate position.
I myself have distinct disagreements with aspects of Mourdock's view. But my main purpose in posting this reply is in effort to help clear up the huge miscommunication that has apparently washed over America regarding this particular party's view on abortion and respect for unborn life. And my continued theme in the abortion debate is to point out my observation that I see far more common ground to both sides than I see differences.
This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
=Dustin
> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
The Republican failure was not their failure to support abortion in the case of rape. It was their bungling in how they communicated their belief on the matter.
>
> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
Take Mourdock in Indiana. His exact quote was:
"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1SEq2o9LY)
Does this mean that he believes that God wants women to be raped and impregnated? After his grossly awkward expression of his stand, he still got 44.4% of the popular vote in Indiana. Can we infer that 44.4% of Indiana citizens uphold a belief that God wants women to be raped and impregnated?
No.
People in Indiana don't believe that, and neither does Mourdock - regardless of what the media firestorm might have us believe.
Here is what I see Mourdock's position to be:
"God smiles on every single baby that is born. Is there a single person who would want our government to make it legal for a mother to kill her baby after it is born? No, not at all. Well there are many of us who go further by upholding the view that human life begins at conception. Because of that belief, we oppose making it legal for a woman to kill that life within her womb. The only exception we have to that is when it is the very life of the mother being threatened. Certainly when a woman is raped, she did not ask for that. It is an abhorrent act. But let's not forget that the newly conceived life did not ask for it either. This is a very difficult issue that I have struggled with for a long time, but each time I find in favor of protecting that new life. When that baby is born, God will smile upon it as with every other baby, regardless of any horrible violence that may have occurred up to that point. One of the most important roles that government does is to protect entities that are too weak to protect themselves. As your Senator, I will stand firm in my position to protect unborn human life."
Here is the follow-up comments he had in his effort to clarify his original statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AwkwCL6_M
Mourdock's position is not as ridiculous when people make the extra effort to try to understand exactly what he was trying to say. He had poorly chosen words that could easily have been misinterpreted to say that he believes God intends rape, and rape babies. But that is completely the opposite of what he believes. His core belief is that he values human life and intends to protect it, even when that life has not been birthed yet.
I see that to be a very reasonable and compassionate position.
I myself have distinct disagreements with aspects of Mourdock's view. But my main purpose in posting this reply is in effort to help clear up the huge miscommunication that has apparently washed over America regarding this particular party's view on abortion and respect for unborn life. And my continued theme in the abortion debate is to point out my observation that I see far more common ground to both sides than I see differences.
This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 7, 2012, 10:01:35 PM11/7/12
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
>From Frank Garner:
>> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>>
>> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>>
>> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
>The Republican failure was not their failure to support abortion in the case of rape. It was their bungling in how they communicated their belief on the matter.
>
>Take Mourdock in Indiana. His exact quote was:
>
>"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
>
>(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1SEq2o9LY)
>
>Does this mean that he believes that God wants women to be raped and impregnated? After his grossly awkward expression of his stand, he still got 44.4% of the popular vote in Indiana. Can we infer that 44.4% of Indiana citizens uphold a belief that God wants women to be raped and impregnated?
>
>No.
>
>People in Indiana don't believe that, and neither does Mourdock - regardless of what the media firestorm might have us believe.
>
>Here is what I see Mourdock's position to be:
>
>"God smiles on every single baby that is born. Is there a single person who would want our government to make it legal for a mother to kill her baby after it is born? No, not at all. Well there are many of us who go further by upholding the view that human life begins at conception. Because of that belief, we oppose making it legal for a woman to kill that life within her womb. The only exception we have to that is when it is the very life of the mother being threatened. Certainly when a woman is raped, she did not ask for that. It is an abhorrent act. But let's not forget that the newly conceived life did not ask for it either. This is a very difficult issue that I have struggled with for a long time, but each time I find in favor of protecting that new life. When that baby is born, God will smile upon it as with every other baby, regardless of any horrible violence that may have occurred up to that point. One of the most important roles that government does is to
protect
>entities that are too weak to protect themselves. As your Senator, I will stand firm in my position to protect unborn human life."
>
>Here is the follow-up comments he had in his effort to clarify his original statement:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AwkwCL6_M
>
>Mourdock's position is not as ridiculous when people make the extra effort to try to understand exactly what he was trying to say. He had poorly chosen words that could easily have been misinterpreted to say that he believes God intends rape, and rape babies. But that is completely the opposite of what he believes. His core belief is that he values human life and intends to protect it, even when that life has not been birthed yet.
>
>I see that to be a very reasonable and compassionate position.
>
>I myself have distinct disagreements with aspects of Mourdock's view. But my main purpose in posting this reply is in effort to help clear up the huge miscommunication that has apparently washed over America regarding this particular party's view on abortion and respect for unborn life. And my continued theme in the abortion debate is to point out my observation that I see far more common ground to both sides than I see differences.
>
>This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
Then again, for reasons I discuss below, we might not.
>...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>
>Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>
>"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
>
>=Dustin
You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
that prevent implantation are forbidden.
So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
pregnant.
Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
birth control.
So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
birth control choices, because they do.
Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
abortion was far too extreme.
wrote:
>From Frank Garner:
>> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>>
>> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>>
>> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
>The Republican failure was not their failure to support abortion in the case of rape. It was their bungling in how they communicated their belief on the matter.
>
>Take Mourdock in Indiana. His exact quote was:
>
>"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
>
>(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1SEq2o9LY)
>
>Does this mean that he believes that God wants women to be raped and impregnated? After his grossly awkward expression of his stand, he still got 44.4% of the popular vote in Indiana. Can we infer that 44.4% of Indiana citizens uphold a belief that God wants women to be raped and impregnated?
>
>No.
>
>People in Indiana don't believe that, and neither does Mourdock - regardless of what the media firestorm might have us believe.
>
>Here is what I see Mourdock's position to be:
>
>"God smiles on every single baby that is born. Is there a single person who would want our government to make it legal for a mother to kill her baby after it is born? No, not at all. Well there are many of us who go further by upholding the view that human life begins at conception. Because of that belief, we oppose making it legal for a woman to kill that life within her womb. The only exception we have to that is when it is the very life of the mother being threatened. Certainly when a woman is raped, she did not ask for that. It is an abhorrent act. But let's not forget that the newly conceived life did not ask for it either. This is a very difficult issue that I have struggled with for a long time, but each time I find in favor of protecting that new life. When that baby is born, God will smile upon it as with every other baby, regardless of any horrible violence that may have occurred up to that point. One of the most important roles that government does is to
protect
>entities that are too weak to protect themselves. As your Senator, I will stand firm in my position to protect unborn human life."
>
>Here is the follow-up comments he had in his effort to clarify his original statement:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AwkwCL6_M
>
>Mourdock's position is not as ridiculous when people make the extra effort to try to understand exactly what he was trying to say. He had poorly chosen words that could easily have been misinterpreted to say that he believes God intends rape, and rape babies. But that is completely the opposite of what he believes. His core belief is that he values human life and intends to protect it, even when that life has not been birthed yet.
>
>I see that to be a very reasonable and compassionate position.
>
>I myself have distinct disagreements with aspects of Mourdock's view. But my main purpose in posting this reply is in effort to help clear up the huge miscommunication that has apparently washed over America regarding this particular party's view on abortion and respect for unborn life. And my continued theme in the abortion debate is to point out my observation that I see far more common ground to both sides than I see differences.
>
>This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
>...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>
>Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>
>"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
>
>=Dustin
moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
that prevent implantation are forbidden.
So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
pregnant.
Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
birth control.
So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
birth control choices, because they do.
Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
abortion was far too extreme.
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 7, 2012, 11:04:33 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
> wrote:
<snip>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
>
>
>
> Then again, for reasons I discuss below, we might not.
>
>
>
> >...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>
> >
>
> >Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>
> >
>
> >"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
>
>
>
> Then again, for reasons I discuss below, we might not.
>
>
>
> >...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>
> >
>
> >Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>
> >
>
> >"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
> You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
>
> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
>
> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
>
> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
>
>
>
> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
>
> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
>
>
>
> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>
>
>
> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
>
>
>
> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
>
> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>
>
>
> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
>
> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
>
> pregnant.
Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
>
> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
>
> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
>
> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
>
>
>
> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
>
> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
>
>
>
> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>
>
>
> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
>
>
>
> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
>
> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>
>
>
> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
>
> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
>
> pregnant.
So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally. This contrasts starkly with invasive abortion methods. Mourdock speaks about being conflicted over the issue, which indicates that he could have room to be persuaded by a strong enough argument.
The crux of the issue is:
- respect for the woman's needs, vs
- respect for the new life.
When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
> Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
>
> time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
>
> always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
>
>
>
> Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
>
> those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
>
> necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
>
> implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
>
> birth control.
>
>
>
> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
>
> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
>
> birth control choices, because they do.
It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
"No, don't take those pills because they might prevent the implantation of a post-conception ovum!"
...when these people know full well that these women have the legal option of waiting around until arm & leg buds get sprouted and then they'll kill it off.
I don't see that push-back happening. I think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to get the vast majority of people to come together under the agreement that such a program would be a huge step in the right direction.
> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
>
> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
>
> abortion was far too extreme.
I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred. But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with. And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue. Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 8, 2012, 2:06:51 AM11/8/12
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
>>
>>
>>
>> Then again, for reasons I discuss below, we might not.
>>
>>
>>
>> >...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
>
>
>> You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
>>
>> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
>>
>> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
>>
>> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
>>
>> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
>>
>>
>>
>> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
>>
>> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
>>
>> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
>>
>> pregnant.
>
>Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
Your understanding of emergency contraception is faulty.
It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
>So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
Sorry.
But, that's wrong.
It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
Happening naturally is one thing. Happening artificially, which is
what we're talking about, is quite another.
One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
> This contrasts starkly with invasive abortion methods. Mourdock speaks about being conflicted over the issue, which indicates that he could have room to be persuaded by a strong enough argument.
I've not noticed that those with a strong ideological stance are
terribly susceptible to counter argument.
I suspect that the real root of Murdock's conflict has less to do with
his position and more to do with his recognition of how politically
unpopular his position is.
>The crux of the issue is:
>- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>- respect for the new life.
>When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
One of the points that people like Murdock and Akin are making is that
they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
abortion.
That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
abortion itself that they oppose.
>We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
It's almost as if you've not been paying attention to what many of the
social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
mean what they're saying...
Their position is this...
Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
said.
>So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
They don't see it as a change from what we have today at all.
An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
>> Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
>>
>> time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
>>
>> always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
>>
>> those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
>>
>> necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
>>
>> implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
>>
>> birth control.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
>>
>> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
>>
>> birth control choices, because they do.
>
>You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
I'm focusing?
They are the ones who are focusing.
It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
attendant consequence.
And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
But, they don't.
They want to end abortion, period.
Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
a developing fetus.
That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
that there is no difference.
You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
not.
>It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
I think your experience with ideologically driven people must be
limited.
This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
preferred religious framework.
They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
to remove it from the game.
They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
Neither is this hyperbole.
State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
other than rape.
"I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
goes on.”
Having said that, they don't see any difference between chemically
preventing implantation or any other form of abortion, so they don't
see it as reducing the number of abortions.
>"No, don't take those pills because they might prevent the implantation of a post-conception ovum!"
I know it sounds absurd, but that is exactly what many on the far
right -are- saying.
Well, except they don't want to say "don't", they want to say "you
can't".
It's not a politically viable position in the country as a whole, but
in certain areas such views have enough support to enact laws.
All they really require is a SCOTUS that will let them get away with
it.
>...when these people know full well that these women have the legal option of waiting around until arm & leg buds get sprouted and then they'll kill it off.
They don't wish to allow that option to remain legal either.
So, for them, it's not really a choice between terminating a pregnancy
before it really starts or terminating it chemically or surgically
after it's begun.
They want to take away the choice to terminate it at all, period, with
almost no exceptions.
>I don't see that push-back happening.
That you don't see it happening doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
Did you know conservatives in Wisconsin effectively outlawed RU-486
last spring?
While one doesn't use the drug to prevent implantation, as emergency
contraception does, it is typically used very early in a pregnancy,
when you suggest there should be less opposition to a woman
terminating a pregnancy.
That should be informative about about their unwillingness to see
nuance in their opposition to abortion.
>I think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to get the vast majority of people to come together under the agreement that such a program would be a huge step in the right direction.
The left is already on board with providing rape victims emergency
contraception.
It's the social conservatives on the right who are in opposition.
As in our last discussion, I'm forced to remind you of which side is
in opposition to what you consider sensible measures.
It's not the left.
>> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
>>
>> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
>>
>> abortion was far too extreme.
>
>I have yet to learn of anyone who has voiced opposition to raped women taking emergency contraception to avoid becoming pregnant. If this has ever happened with anyone who was running for public office, I would be very interested in learning about that.
That's -exactly- the position Murdock, Akin and those who support
personhood laws, are taking.
When questioned about the matter during a radio interview a few months
ago, Akin came out in opposition to emergency contraception.
"Q: Just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning after
pill totally for everyone?
TA: Yeah. I think that is a form of abortion and I don't support it."
They aren't kidding when they say "personhood begins at the moment of
conception".
You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
the moment of implantation".
They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
>I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
What we have now, abortion on demand in the first trimester, with
increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
position, not the other way around.
>And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
You are being reasonable.
The far right are not reasonable.
>Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
The far right won't see it as an improvement at all.
That's the way ideologues are.
As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
for making it comprehensible. :)
wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >This particular debate in Indiana could have been far more productive if all three candidates were asked if they would support a government initiative that would make it very easy for rape victims to take measures that would prevent them from getting pregnant, or preventing implantation. We might find that all of them would be enthusiastically supportive!
>>
>>
>>
>> Then again, for reasons I discuss below, we might not.
>>
>>
>>
>> >...so then what would happen to the original problem in question? There would be a drastic change toward a healthy solution that most everyone can get behind, and the issue of any woman getting pregnant from rape would be taking major steps toward becoming a non-issue.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Four years from now if that same question comes up in debate, all candidates regardless of their party could say the same thing:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >"We're smart enough today to know how to prevent raped women from getting pregnant. - Next question!"
>
>
>> You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
>>
>> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
>>
>> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
>>
>> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
>>
>> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
>>
>>
>>
>> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
>>
>> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
>>
>> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
>>
>> pregnant.
>
>Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
>So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
But, that's wrong.
It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
what we're talking about, is quite another.
One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
> This contrasts starkly with invasive abortion methods. Mourdock speaks about being conflicted over the issue, which indicates that he could have room to be persuaded by a strong enough argument.
terribly susceptible to counter argument.
I suspect that the real root of Murdock's conflict has less to do with
his position and more to do with his recognition of how politically
unpopular his position is.
>The crux of the issue is:
>- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>- respect for the new life.
>When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
abortion.
That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
abortion itself that they oppose.
>We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
mean what they're saying...
Their position is this...
Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
said.
>So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
>> Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
>>
>> time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
>>
>> always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
>>
>> those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
>>
>> necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
>>
>> implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
>>
>> birth control.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
>>
>> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
>>
>> birth control choices, because they do.
>
>You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
They are the ones who are focusing.
It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
attendant consequence.
And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
But, they don't.
They want to end abortion, period.
Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
a developing fetus.
That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
that there is no difference.
You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
not.
>It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
limited.
This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
preferred religious framework.
They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
to remove it from the game.
They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
Neither is this hyperbole.
State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
other than rape.
"I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
goes on.”
Having said that, they don't see any difference between chemically
preventing implantation or any other form of abortion, so they don't
see it as reducing the number of abortions.
>"No, don't take those pills because they might prevent the implantation of a post-conception ovum!"
right -are- saying.
Well, except they don't want to say "don't", they want to say "you
can't".
It's not a politically viable position in the country as a whole, but
in certain areas such views have enough support to enact laws.
All they really require is a SCOTUS that will let them get away with
it.
>...when these people know full well that these women have the legal option of waiting around until arm & leg buds get sprouted and then they'll kill it off.
So, for them, it's not really a choice between terminating a pregnancy
before it really starts or terminating it chemically or surgically
after it's begun.
They want to take away the choice to terminate it at all, period, with
almost no exceptions.
>I don't see that push-back happening.
Did you know conservatives in Wisconsin effectively outlawed RU-486
last spring?
While one doesn't use the drug to prevent implantation, as emergency
contraception does, it is typically used very early in a pregnancy,
when you suggest there should be less opposition to a woman
terminating a pregnancy.
That should be informative about about their unwillingness to see
nuance in their opposition to abortion.
>I think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to get the vast majority of people to come together under the agreement that such a program would be a huge step in the right direction.
contraception.
It's the social conservatives on the right who are in opposition.
As in our last discussion, I'm forced to remind you of which side is
in opposition to what you consider sensible measures.
It's not the left.
>> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
>>
>> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
>>
>> abortion was far too extreme.
>
>I have yet to learn of anyone who has voiced opposition to raped women taking emergency contraception to avoid becoming pregnant. If this has ever happened with anyone who was running for public office, I would be very interested in learning about that.
personhood laws, are taking.
When questioned about the matter during a radio interview a few months
ago, Akin came out in opposition to emergency contraception.
"Q: Just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning after
pill totally for everyone?
TA: Yeah. I think that is a form of abortion and I don't support it."
They aren't kidding when they say "personhood begins at the moment of
conception".
You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
the moment of implantation".
They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
>I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
position, not the other way around.
>And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
The far right are not reasonable.
>Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
That's the way ideologues are.
As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
for making it comprehensible. :)
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2012, 10:39:43 AM11/8/12
to
From SilentOtto:
"Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion."
Source- http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html
> >So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>
>
>
> Sorry.
>
>
>
> But, that's wrong.
>
>
>
> It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
When Princeton talks, I listen.
...but if you have a reference that might convince me that my understanding is completely mistaken, I'd be glad to read it.
> >Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
>
>
>
> Happening naturally is one thing. Happening artificially, which is
>
> what we're talking about, is quite another.
>
>
>
> One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
There seems to be a huge education disconnect here. Even if we were to agree that morning after options work by preventing implantation, it would still not be an abortion. The word abortion refers to aborting a pregnancy. If a fertilized ovum does not implant, then pregnancy never started.
> >The crux of the issue is:
>
> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>
> >- respect for the new life.
>
>
>
> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
>
>
> One of the points that people like Murdock and Akin are making is that
>
> they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
>
> compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
>
> abortion.
>
>
>
> That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
>
>
>
> It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
>
> abortion itself that they oppose.
Let's be clear that BOTH Mourdock and Akin *do* support abortion under a strict set of circumstances. Neither of them maintains a position that they oppose abortion under absolutely every case. So for both of these ultra-extreme people, they have considered certain situations where they arrive at the conclusion that:
"Abortion is the proper course of action in this case. I fully support abortion for her to deal with her pregnancy."
(Those are my words, as inferred from their words.)
Now imagine if you could help these people get educated to the point where they become aware that 'morning after' is not abortion. That it is a solution that is totally consistent with their stand on respect for life.
Alternatively, you (or someone else here) might educate me that my understanding is deficient. It is possible that I will read something that will convince me that 'morning after' is an abortion.
> >We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
>
>
>
> It's almost as if you've not been paying attention to what many of the
>
> social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
>
> mean what they're saying...
>
>
>
> Their position is this...
>
>
>
> Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
>
> conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
>
> legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
I do understand that this is their position. Perfectly clear.
> There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
>
> Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
>
> said.
>
>
>
> >So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
>
>
>
> They don't see it as a change from what we have today at all.
>
>
>
> An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
>
> preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
Now if instead we all get onto the same page as that Princeton understanding, we will know that 'morning after' works by "delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion".
<snip>
> Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
>
> a developing fetus.
>
>
>
> That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
>
> that there is no difference.
>
>
>
> You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
>
> not.
Rape is a special, rare case. And I've already highlighted the fact that even these most extreme of people do support abortion under certain rare cases. Further education can bring about further shift in position.
> >It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
>
>
>
> I think your experience with ideologically driven people must be
>
> limited.
>
>
>
> This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
>
>
>
> Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
>
> abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
>
> preferred religious framework.
>
>
>
> They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
>
> to remove it from the game.
Excellent point. (...as I remember having previously acknowledged.)
> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
>
> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
>
>
>
> Neither is this hyperbole.
>
>
>
> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
>
> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
>
> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
>
> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
>
> other than rape.
>
>
>
> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
>
> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
>
> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
>
> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
>
> goes on.”
I happen to see that as a smart concern. If rape cases are treated differently, then I agree it is important to medically verify that rape actually occurred.
In this thread, I do not recall having suggested that.
What I remember saying is that there should be less opposition to a morning after solution versus the option of terminating early in a pregnancy.
> That should be informative about about their unwillingness to see
>
> nuance in their opposition to abortion.
>
>
>
> >I think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to get the vast majority of people to come together under the agreement that such a program would be a huge step in the right direction.
>
>
>
> The left is already on board with providing rape victims emergency
>
> contraception.
>
>
>
> It's the social conservatives on the right who are in opposition.
>
>
>
> As in our last discussion, I'm forced to remind you of which side is
>
> in opposition to what you consider sensible measures.
>
>
>
> It's not the left.
>
>
>
> >> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
>
> >>
>
> >> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
>
> >>
>
> >> abortion was far too extreme.
>
> >
>
> >I have yet to learn of anyone who has voiced opposition to raped women taking emergency contraception to avoid becoming pregnant. If this has ever happened with anyone who was running for public office, I would be very interested in learning about that.
>
>
>
> That's -exactly- the position Murdock, Akin and those who support
>
> personhood laws, are taking.
>
>
>
> When questioned about the matter during a radio interview a few months
>
> ago, Akin came out in opposition to emergency contraception.
>
>
>
> "Q: Just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning after
>
> pill totally for everyone?
>
>
>
> TA: Yeah. I think that is a form of abortion and I don't support it."
>
> They aren't kidding when they say "personhood begins at the moment of
>
> conception".
Here's the audio of that interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzrcpetPSA
...and he states:
TA: As far as I'm concerned, the morning after pill is a form of abortion and I think we shouldn't have abortion in this country.
I see this to clearly be an error of fact that can be fixed with education.
Immediately following this comment, he goes on to explain the case where he is in favor of abortion.
Here is the question I would like to see him asked:
"If a woman is raped, and there is some pill that she could take that would prevent conception from ever happening inside her body, would you be support her in that? Would you support government subsidy of that solution?"
There is absolutely nothing I've seen from anyone on the far right to indicate that any of them would say 'no' to that. It would then follow that if we were all to be in agreement that this is exactly how the morning after solution works, then this issue would be resolved.
> You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
>
> the moment of implantation".
>
>
>
> They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
I understand the distinction. What you might want to consider is that their motivation for taking such an extreme position is that they see the pendulum to be so far to the "wrong" side that they feel compelled to drive a hard line to the farthest opposing side just because they see that as the most effective way to get the pendulum to budge one inch toward a rational equilibrium.
Try for a moment to step into their shoes. Look at today's accepted attitudes and practices of abortion as a present day Holocaust. Can we gain some appreciation as to why they are so urgent in their extreme stand against what is going on? Why so many of them are willing to jump on top of their swords for their cause?
Now imagine that society did NOT use abortion as a means of birth control. Imagine that the vast majority of women who do not want to get pregnant took responsible measures up front to make sure that they don't get pregnant.
In such a world, the problem of unwanted pregnancy is practically solved. These people you see as right-wing monsters have no Holocaust to champion against. Can we not imagine then that the ensuing conversations about how to deal with women who are raped then becomes a much more rational discussion?!
These people are dismissed as idiots by everyone today who is blind to the fundamental atrocity that they so clearly see. And they are mocked by the stand they take on the marginal cases (rape, ...) when what they care most about is the casual extermination of human fetuses.
> As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
>
> emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
These people see an entire house on fire. They urgently want to see hoses taken to extinguish all of the flames. If you come along to point out that fire can be used in certain cases for good things like heating up your food, they will be a lot more open to hearing that *after* the house fire has been extinguished.
What the media latches onto is the story of that person walking up to the firefighter while they're frantically struggling to put out the fire, and the headline becomes:
"Nutjob firefighter is opposed to using matches for heating up soup."
> >I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>
>
>
> >But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
>
>
>
> What we have now, abortion on demand in the first trimester, with
>
> increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
>
> the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
>
>
>
> The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
>
> position, not the other way around.
I'll ask you again to examine the far right's position for any shred of merit. Is there any possibility that they are firefighters? Can you at least recognize that they see themselves to be?
If you answer yes, then perhaps the strategy becomes convincing these people that abortion is a wonderful thing. Kind of like how a park ranger will explain to you that wildfires serve a productive role in renewal of the land.
I myself have yet to be persuaded of the wisdom in the status quo abortion policy and attitudes.
> >And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
>
>
>
> You are being reasonable.
>
>
>
> The far right are not reasonable.
>
>
>
> >Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
>
>
>
> The far right won't see it as an improvement at all.
>
>
>
> That's the way ideologues are.
> As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
>
> continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
>
> for making it comprehensible. :)
Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
=Dustin
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>
> >> wrote:
> >Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
>
>
>
> Your understanding of emergency contraception is faulty.
>
>
>
> It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
Your understanding is in total disagreement with what Princeton says:
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>
> >> wrote:
> >Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
>
>
>
> Your understanding of emergency contraception is faulty.
>
>
>
> It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
"Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion."
Source- http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html
> >So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>
>
>
> Sorry.
>
>
>
> But, that's wrong.
>
>
>
> It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
...but if you have a reference that might convince me that my understanding is completely mistaken, I'd be glad to read it.
> >Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
>
>
>
> Happening naturally is one thing. Happening artificially, which is
>
> what we're talking about, is quite another.
>
>
>
> One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
> >The crux of the issue is:
>
> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>
> >- respect for the new life.
>
>
>
> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
>
>
> One of the points that people like Murdock and Akin are making is that
>
> they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
>
> compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
>
> abortion.
>
>
>
> That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
>
>
>
> It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
>
> abortion itself that they oppose.
"Abortion is the proper course of action in this case. I fully support abortion for her to deal with her pregnancy."
(Those are my words, as inferred from their words.)
Now imagine if you could help these people get educated to the point where they become aware that 'morning after' is not abortion. That it is a solution that is totally consistent with their stand on respect for life.
Alternatively, you (or someone else here) might educate me that my understanding is deficient. It is possible that I will read something that will convince me that 'morning after' is an abortion.
> >We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
>
>
>
> It's almost as if you've not been paying attention to what many of the
>
> social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
>
> mean what they're saying...
>
>
>
> Their position is this...
>
>
>
> Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
>
> conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
>
> legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
> There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
>
> Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
>
> said.
>
>
>
> >So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
>
>
>
> They don't see it as a change from what we have today at all.
>
>
>
> An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
>
> preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
<snip>
> >> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
> >> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
> >> birth control choices, because they do.
>
> >
>
> >You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
>
>
>
> I'm focusing?
>
>
>
> They are the ones who are focusing.
>
>
>
> It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
>
>
>
> They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
>
> attendant consequence.
>
>
>
> And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
>
>
>
> I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
>
> the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
>
>
>
> But, they don't.
>
>
>
> They want to end abortion, period.
I see the core of their belief to be a basic respect for unborn life. And here I see a lot of merit in what they are bringing to the table. There are plenty of women who use abortion as a primary means of birth control. It's difficult for me to hear people say they are totally satisfied with the way things are now, especially when we today have much smarter means of preventing pregnancy.
> >> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
> >> birth control choices, because they do.
>
> >
>
> >You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
>
>
>
> I'm focusing?
>
>
>
> They are the ones who are focusing.
>
>
>
> It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
>
>
>
> They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
>
> attendant consequence.
>
>
>
> And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
>
>
>
> I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
>
> the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
>
>
>
> But, they don't.
>
>
>
> They want to end abortion, period.
> Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
>
> a developing fetus.
>
>
>
> That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
>
> that there is no difference.
>
>
>
> You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
>
> not.
> >It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
>
>
>
> I think your experience with ideologically driven people must be
>
> limited.
>
>
>
> This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
>
>
>
> Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
>
> abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
>
> preferred religious framework.
>
>
>
> They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
>
> to remove it from the game.
> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
>
> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
>
>
>
> Neither is this hyperbole.
>
>
>
> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
>
> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
>
> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
>
> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
>
> other than rape.
>
>
>
> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
>
> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
>
> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
>
> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
>
> goes on.”
What I remember saying is that there should be less opposition to a morning after solution versus the option of terminating early in a pregnancy.
> That should be informative about about their unwillingness to see
>
> nuance in their opposition to abortion.
>
>
>
> >I think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to get the vast majority of people to come together under the agreement that such a program would be a huge step in the right direction.
>
>
>
> The left is already on board with providing rape victims emergency
>
> contraception.
>
>
>
> It's the social conservatives on the right who are in opposition.
>
>
>
> As in our last discussion, I'm forced to remind you of which side is
>
> in opposition to what you consider sensible measures.
>
>
>
> It's not the left.
>
>
>
> >> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
>
> >>
>
> >> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
>
> >>
>
> >> abortion was far too extreme.
>
> >
>
> >I have yet to learn of anyone who has voiced opposition to raped women taking emergency contraception to avoid becoming pregnant. If this has ever happened with anyone who was running for public office, I would be very interested in learning about that.
>
>
>
> That's -exactly- the position Murdock, Akin and those who support
>
> personhood laws, are taking.
>
>
>
> When questioned about the matter during a radio interview a few months
>
> ago, Akin came out in opposition to emergency contraception.
>
>
>
> "Q: Just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning after
>
> pill totally for everyone?
>
>
>
> TA: Yeah. I think that is a form of abortion and I don't support it."
>
> They aren't kidding when they say "personhood begins at the moment of
>
> conception".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzrcpetPSA
...and he states:
TA: As far as I'm concerned, the morning after pill is a form of abortion and I think we shouldn't have abortion in this country.
I see this to clearly be an error of fact that can be fixed with education.
Immediately following this comment, he goes on to explain the case where he is in favor of abortion.
Here is the question I would like to see him asked:
"If a woman is raped, and there is some pill that she could take that would prevent conception from ever happening inside her body, would you be support her in that? Would you support government subsidy of that solution?"
There is absolutely nothing I've seen from anyone on the far right to indicate that any of them would say 'no' to that. It would then follow that if we were all to be in agreement that this is exactly how the morning after solution works, then this issue would be resolved.
> You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
>
> the moment of implantation".
>
>
>
> They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
Try for a moment to step into their shoes. Look at today's accepted attitudes and practices of abortion as a present day Holocaust. Can we gain some appreciation as to why they are so urgent in their extreme stand against what is going on? Why so many of them are willing to jump on top of their swords for their cause?
Now imagine that society did NOT use abortion as a means of birth control. Imagine that the vast majority of women who do not want to get pregnant took responsible measures up front to make sure that they don't get pregnant.
In such a world, the problem of unwanted pregnancy is practically solved. These people you see as right-wing monsters have no Holocaust to champion against. Can we not imagine then that the ensuing conversations about how to deal with women who are raped then becomes a much more rational discussion?!
These people are dismissed as idiots by everyone today who is blind to the fundamental atrocity that they so clearly see. And they are mocked by the stand they take on the marginal cases (rape, ...) when what they care most about is the casual extermination of human fetuses.
> As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
>
> emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
What the media latches onto is the story of that person walking up to the firefighter while they're frantically struggling to put out the fire, and the headline becomes:
"Nutjob firefighter is opposed to using matches for heating up soup."
> >I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>
>
>
> >But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
>
>
>
> What we have now, abortion on demand in the first trimester, with
>
> increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
>
> the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
>
>
>
> The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
>
> position, not the other way around.
If you answer yes, then perhaps the strategy becomes convincing these people that abortion is a wonderful thing. Kind of like how a park ranger will explain to you that wildfires serve a productive role in renewal of the land.
I myself have yet to be persuaded of the wisdom in the status quo abortion policy and attitudes.
> >And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
>
>
>
> You are being reasonable.
>
>
>
> The far right are not reasonable.
>
>
>
> >Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
>
>
>
> The far right won't see it as an improvement at all.
>
>
>
> That's the way ideologues are.
> As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
>
> continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
>
> for making it comprehensible. :)
=Dustin
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dino
Nov 8, 2012, 1:08:24 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 12:46 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And you are opposed to women having a right to control her own body?
No, but that doesn't mean we are not entitled to view the choice to
abort as the wrong choice.
Do you understand the difference loon?
Or is it too hard for you to understand?
By the way, you made a statement in another post, where you stated how
I "think".
I asked you to back it up. It would be nice if you would attempt to.
I do believe you said something in reference to saying I think women
can't control their own bodies...or something like that.
So loon, I'm waiting for you to show what I think and to back it up.
And
> support the child abuse of forcing unwanted babies to be born? You are one
> more evil son of a bitch.
> This election showed you that you are a evil minority, and most Americans
> will stand against your evil, hate filled bigotry.
Oh puh-lease, they will stand against yours too loon.
No, but that doesn't mean we are not entitled to view the choice to
abort as the wrong choice.
Do you understand the difference loon?
Or is it too hard for you to understand?
By the way, you made a statement in another post, where you stated how
I "think".
I asked you to back it up. It would be nice if you would attempt to.
I do believe you said something in reference to saying I think women
can't control their own bodies...or something like that.
So loon, I'm waiting for you to show what I think and to back it up.
And
> support the child abuse of forcing unwanted babies to be born? You are one
> more evil son of a bitch.
> This election showed you that you are a evil minority, and most Americans
> will stand against your evil, hate filled bigotry.
Oh puh-lease, they will stand against yours too loon.
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2012, 1:54:37 PM11/8/12
to
From Robert Parker:
> And you are opposed to women having a right to control her own body? And
Look at the situation as it stands today...
Women are prohibited from killing their children after they are born. There are also broad prohibitions from them killing off the life within them during their third trimester. WHAT OPPRESSION THEY ARE UNDER! Why are you not up in arms about how "evil" and "bigoted" those policies are? The line must be drawn somewhere, otherwise it would be legal for your mother to kill you today. You don't support her "right" to do that, so you? Yes, Robert, even you must own up to your own limits on "freedom".
The difference is that you want the line drawn to the left of where they do, and because of that you call them all these nasty names. And from their perspective because you draw your line in a different place that they do, they call you all kinds of nasty names as well.
What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible. It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
=Dustin
> And you are opposed to women having a right to control her own body? And
> support the child abuse of forcing unwanted babies to be born? You are one
> more evil son of a bitch.
> This election showed you that you are a evil minority, and most Americans
> will stand against your evil, hate filled bigotry.
What I have been focusing on in this thread is explaining *their* position. And the crux of that position is not them not wanting women to control their own bodies, but rather that women's unrestricted choices conflicts with what they see the rights of the unborn to be.
> more evil son of a bitch.
> This election showed you that you are a evil minority, and most Americans
> will stand against your evil, hate filled bigotry.
Look at the situation as it stands today...
Women are prohibited from killing their children after they are born. There are also broad prohibitions from them killing off the life within them during their third trimester. WHAT OPPRESSION THEY ARE UNDER! Why are you not up in arms about how "evil" and "bigoted" those policies are? The line must be drawn somewhere, otherwise it would be legal for your mother to kill you today. You don't support her "right" to do that, so you? Yes, Robert, even you must own up to your own limits on "freedom".
The difference is that you want the line drawn to the left of where they do, and because of that you call them all these nasty names. And from their perspective because you draw your line in a different place that they do, they call you all kinds of nasty names as well.
What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible. It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
=Dustin
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2012, 1:58:15 PM11/8/12
to
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:54:11 AM UTC-6, Robert Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com wrote:
> >The crux of the issue is:
> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> >- respect for the new life.
> >
> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> Then the self righteous bigots need to understand it's none of their damn
> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> >- respect for the new life.
> >
> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> business. It's a decision for the woman and her Doctor. Not nosy busy
> bodies with nothing to do but be a stupid ass.
I totally understand your position.
The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 8, 2012, 2:40:38 PM11/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
>From SilentOtto:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your understanding of emergency contraception is faulty.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
>
>Your understanding is in total disagreement with what Princeton says:
>
>"Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion."
See below.
>
>Source- http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html
>
>> >So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, that's wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>
>When Princeton talks, I listen.
>
>...but if you have a reference that might convince me that my understanding is completely mistaken, I'd be glad to read it.
It seems that the description of how the morning after pill works has
been modified.
I didn't catch that and stand corrected.
However, I want to make it clear that I wasn't talking out my ass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1352396324-/Y1h2/EHYlyhLHpEvG8kWw
"Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to
prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized
eggs from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Respected medical
authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo
Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites."
Further reading suggests that the medical community doesn't know
precisely how morning after pills works, but have revised their
description to include preventing ovulation as the primary means of
preventing pregnancy.
Even so, conservative politicians have been asked directly about
emergency contraception, and they've come out against it.
Having said that, perhaps their understanding is outdated also, and
they may be more willing to reconsider the matter were they corrected.
However, I wouldn't be optimistic in that score.
The response of the anti-abortion community to the revision of how the
morning after pill works was to contest the revision, not to embrace
it.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-truth-about-morning-after-pills/
The truth about ‘Morning-after pills’
by Anna Maria Hoffman
Tue Jul 31, 2012 08:56 EST
Comments ()
Tags: ella, media bias, morning-after pill, plan b
On June 5, 2012, New York Times writer Pam Belluck wrote an article
called “Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded.” In
her article, Belluck mistakenly lumps Plan B and Ella—two very
different drugs—together, ignorantly proclaims that these drugs do not
prevent implantation, and does not account for Ella’s
abortion-inducing actions. Unsurprisingly, Belluck claims that the
pro-life view of morning-after pills “is probably rooted in outdated
or incorrect scientific guesses about how [they] work.” As she
presents her empty argument, Belluck argues that no studies have
confirmed “that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs
from implanting in the womb” and that these pills only “delay
ovulation.” She heavily refers to a New York Times review, along with
“scientists” and “experts” she forgets to cite, to support her view
that Plan B does not prevent implantation and that “the one-shot dose
in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine
lining.
Disheartened by Belluck’s reporting? Luckily, several renowned
pro-life advocates have written articles against Belluck’s dishonest
claims:
Donna Harrison, The Times’s Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
Gerard Nadal, Responding to the New York Times on ‘Morning After’
Pills: A Factual Recalibration (Part I)
Jeanne Monahan, Emergency Contraception: We need an unbiased review of
the facts
Richard Doerflinger, Letter in Response to NY Times Article of June 6,
2012
Marie T. Hilliard, Are Journalists Now Scientists? A Reporter Loses
Sight of Data on Plan B”
If you go to the website, the articles and essays listed above are
linked, so you can read them yourself.
But, what one would think is good news about the workings of the
morning after pill has been met with skepticism and efforts to contest
the revision of how the morning after pill works.
See what I mean about ideologues?
I'm not yet clear on how representative of the anti-abortion community
the above views are, but I wouldn't be optimistic.
>> >Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happening naturally is one thing. Happening artificially, which is
>>
>> what we're talking about, is quite another.
>>
>>
>>
>> One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
>
>There seems to be a huge education disconnect here. Even if we were to agree that morning after options work by preventing implantation, it would still not be an abortion. The word abortion refers to aborting a pregnancy. If a fertilized ovum does not implant, then pregnancy never started.
As I noted in my last post, that doesn't cut much ice with social
conservatives.
They are the ones who need convincing about the efficacy of emergency
contraception, not me.
>
>> >The crux of the issue is:
>>
>> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>>
>> >- respect for the new life.
>>
>>
>>
>> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the points that people like Murdock and Akin are making is that
>>
>> they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
>>
>> compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
>>
>> abortion.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
>>
>> abortion itself that they oppose.
>
>Let's be clear that BOTH Mourdock and Akin *do* support abortion under a strict set of circumstances. Neither of them maintains a position that they oppose abortion under absolutely every case. So for both of these ultra-extreme people, they have considered certain situations where they arrive at the conclusion that:
>
>"Abortion is the proper course of action in this case. I fully support abortion for her to deal with her pregnancy."
The only situation I've heard them offer any support for abortion has
to do with the life of the mother.
That severe limit is one of the things that got them into trouble.
>(Those are my words, as inferred from their words.)
>
>Now imagine if you could help these people get educated to the point where they become aware that 'morning after' is not abortion. That it is a solution that is totally consistent with their stand on respect for life.
They may be open to such an argument.
Then again... They may not.
>Alternatively, you (or someone else here) might educate me that my understanding is deficient. It is possible that I will read something that will convince me that 'morning after' is an abortion.
It seems that there's still uncertainty about the matter, even in the
medical community.
>> >We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's almost as if you've not been paying attention to what many of the
>>
>> social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
>>
>> mean what they're saying...
>>
>>
>>
>> Their position is this...
>>
>>
>>
>> Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
>>
>> conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
>>
>> legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
>
>I do understand that this is their position. Perfectly clear.
OK.
>
>> There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
>>
>> Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
>>
>> said.
>>
>>
>>
>> >So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
>>
>>
>>
>> They don't see it as a change from what we have today at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
>>
>> preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
>
>Now if instead we all get onto the same page as that Princeton understanding, we will know that 'morning after' works by "delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion".
We'll have to see.
I still wouldn't be optimistic.
>
><snip>
>> >> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
>> >> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
>> >> birth control choices, because they do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm focusing?
>>
>>
>>
>> They are the ones who are focusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
>>
>> attendant consequence.
>>
>>
>>
>> And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
>>
>> the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, they don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> They want to end abortion, period.
>
>I see the core of their belief to be a basic respect for unborn life. And here I see a lot of merit in what they are bringing to the table. There are plenty of women who use abortion as a primary means of birth control. It's difficult for me to hear people say they are totally satisfied with the way things are now, especially when we today have much smarter means of preventing pregnancy.
If you think you can persuade women who use abortion as a primary
means of birth control to use other methods, have at it.
You'll get no argument from me.
However, making abortion illegal as a sort of cudgel to encourage some
irresponsible women to be more responsible isn't an acceptable
solution to me.
>> Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
>>
>> a developing fetus.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
>>
>> that there is no difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
>>
>> not.
>
>Rape is a special, rare case. And I've already highlighted the fact that even these most extreme of people do support abortion under certain rare cases. Further education can bring about further shift in position.
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
Take Catholics, for example.
They are certain to maintain their objection to the morning after
pill.
After all, they're against -all- forms of birth control.
>> >It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think your experience with ideologically driven people must be
>>
>> limited.
>>
>>
>>
>> This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
>>
>> abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
>>
>> preferred religious framework.
>>
>>
>>
>> They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
>>
>> to remove it from the game.
>
>Excellent point. (...as I remember having previously acknowledged.)
I couldn't recall if I successfully persuaded you on that point or
not.
>> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
>>
>> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither is this hyperbole.
>>
>>
>>
>> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
>>
>> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
>>
>> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
>>
>> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
>>
>> other than rape.
>>
>>
>>
>> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
>>
>> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
>>
>> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
>>
>> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
>>
>> goes on.”
>
>I happen to see that as a smart concern. If rape cases are treated differently, then I agree it is important to medically verify that rape actually occurred.
First, I don't wish to see rapes treated differently. I think
abortion should be broadly available with few exceptions, as
determined by a woman and her doctor.
Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
the case of rape will open?
Who is to decide if a woman has been raped?
Is she going to be interrogated?
Is she going to be inspected for signs of violence?
What if there are no signs of violence?
Is the state going to allow an abortion at the conclusion of a police
investigation, or must a woman wait for the conclusion of a trial
before an abortion is allowed?
There are many questions and implications to such a law, and they
aren't pretty.
It was implied by your seeming acceptance of the idea of an increasing
continuum of opposition to abortion as a pregnancy progresses.
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
>>Immediately following this comment, he goes on to explain the case where he is in favor of abortion.
Right.
I still consider that an overly extreme position.
>Here is the question I would like to see him asked:
>"If a woman is raped, and there is some pill that she could take that would prevent conception from ever happening inside her body, would you be support her in that? Would you support government subsidy of that solution?"
>
>There is absolutely nothing I've seen from anyone on the far right to indicate that any of them would say 'no' to that. It would then follow that if we were all to be in agreement that this is exactly how the morning after solution works, then this issue would be resolved.
Perhaps.
Except for Catholics.
They're certain to maintain their objection.
>> You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
>>
>> the moment of implantation".
>>
>>
>>
>> They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
>
>I understand the distinction. What you might want to consider is that their motivation for taking such an extreme position is that they see the pendulum to be so far to the "wrong" side that they feel compelled to drive a hard line to the farthest opposing side just because they see that as the most effective way to get the pendulum to budge one inch toward a rational equilibrium.
I don't think that this the sort of issue where taking an extreme
position as a negotiating tactic is useful, neither do I believe that
is what they are doing.
>Try for a moment to step into their shoes. Look at today's accepted attitudes and practices of abortion as a present day Holocaust. Can we gain some appreciation as to why they are so urgent in their extreme stand against what is going on? Why so many of them are willing to jump on top of their swords for their cause?
Many anti-abortion activists seem genuinely shocked when they lose at
the polls. I think they've persuaded themselves that putting extreme
restrictions on abortion is really the majority position, even in the
face of evidence that it's not.
That's what ideologues frequently do.
>Now imagine that society did NOT use abortion as a means of birth control. Imagine that the vast majority of women who do not want to get pregnant took responsible measures up front to make sure that they don't get pregnant.
This gets back to our last discussion.
I'll again remind you of which side is opposed to practical, effective
sex education.
>In such a world, the problem of unwanted pregnancy is practically solved. These people you see as right-wing monsters have no Holocaust to champion against. Can we not imagine then that the ensuing conversations about how to deal with women who are raped then becomes a much more rational discussion?!
Again...
I'm not the one you need to persuade when it comes to sex education.
>These people are dismissed as idiots by everyone today who is blind to the fundamental atrocity that they so clearly see. And they are mocked by the stand they take on the marginal cases (rape, ...) when what they care most about is the casual extermination of human fetuses.
I don't believe that the "casual extermination of human fetuses" is
what they care about most.
I believe that what they care about most is preventing sex outside of
their preferred religious framework.
Their opposition to effective sex education and expanded availability
of birth control proves it.
>> As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
>>
>> emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
>
>These people see an entire house on fire. They urgently want to see hoses taken to extinguish all of the flames. If you come along to point out that fire can be used in certain cases for good things like heating up your food, they will be a lot more open to hearing that *after* the house fire has been extinguished.
Again, I wouldn't be optimistic on that score.
The response to the revision in how the morning after pill works has
been "FIRE BAD!!!", so to speak.
>What the media latches onto is the story of that person walking up to the firefighter while they're frantically struggling to put out the fire, and the headline becomes:
>
>"Nutjob firefighter is opposed to using matches for heating up soup."
"FIRE BAD!!!"
>> >I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
>>
>>
>>
>> What we have now, abortion on demand in the first trimester, with
>>
>> increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
>>
>> the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
>>
>> position, not the other way around.
>
>I'll ask you again to examine the far right's position for any shred of merit. Is there any possibility that they are firefighters? Can you at least recognize that they see themselves to be?
I've examined their position for a shred of merit.
Were they pressing for improved sex education and expanded
availability of birth control, I might accept that they really are
"firefighters", as you put it.
But, they aren't.
In fact, they're actively trying to sabotage such efforts.
They're far less fighters than they are arsonists, to twist your
metaphor a bit.
>If you answer yes, then perhaps the strategy becomes convincing these people that abortion is a wonderful thing. Kind of like how a park ranger will explain to you that wildfires serve a productive role in renewal of the land.
Have at it.
>
>I myself have yet to be persuaded of the wisdom in the status quo abortion policy and attitudes.
I think it's the best compromise for society as a whole, and the only
one that makes any real sense.
The bottom line is that there is no way to force a woman to carry a
fetus to term that she doesn't want to carry.
So, it's not really a choice between abortion and no abortion.
It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
I have to come down on the side of safe abortion.
>> >And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are being reasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right are not reasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right won't see it as an improvement at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the way ideologues are.
>
>
>> As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
>>
>> continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
>>
>> for making it comprehensible. :)
>
>Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
When they switched to the "new Google groups", it screwed things up.
I think it now quotes every line in a post instead of just quoting
lines of text.
Anyway, it's on you to keep it comprehensible.
Cheers.
wrote:
>From SilentOtto:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
>>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >Emergency contraception is understood, aiui, to have *both* effects in how it works. It can serve to prevent conception, and it can also serve to prevent implantation after conception.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your understanding of emergency contraception is faulty.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does -not- prevent conception, only implantation.
>
>Your understanding is in total disagreement with what Princeton says:
>
>"Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion."
>
>Source- http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html
>
>> >So one "selling point" is that it can outright prevent that moment that certain people hold to be sacred - the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, that's wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does not prevent the uniting of sperm and ovum.
>
>When Princeton talks, I listen.
>
>...but if you have a reference that might convince me that my understanding is completely mistaken, I'd be glad to read it.
been modified.
I didn't catch that and stand corrected.
However, I want to make it clear that I wasn't talking out my ass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1352396324-/Y1h2/EHYlyhLHpEvG8kWw
"Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to
prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized
eggs from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Respected medical
authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo
Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites."
Further reading suggests that the medical community doesn't know
precisely how morning after pills works, but have revised their
description to include preventing ovulation as the primary means of
preventing pregnancy.
Even so, conservative politicians have been asked directly about
emergency contraception, and they've come out against it.
Having said that, perhaps their understanding is outdated also, and
they may be more willing to reconsider the matter were they corrected.
However, I wouldn't be optimistic in that score.
The response of the anti-abortion community to the revision of how the
morning after pill works was to contest the revision, not to embrace
it.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-truth-about-morning-after-pills/
The truth about ‘Morning-after pills’
by Anna Maria Hoffman
Tue Jul 31, 2012 08:56 EST
Comments ()
Tags: ella, media bias, morning-after pill, plan b
On June 5, 2012, New York Times writer Pam Belluck wrote an article
called “Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded.” In
her article, Belluck mistakenly lumps Plan B and Ella—two very
different drugs—together, ignorantly proclaims that these drugs do not
prevent implantation, and does not account for Ella’s
abortion-inducing actions. Unsurprisingly, Belluck claims that the
pro-life view of morning-after pills “is probably rooted in outdated
or incorrect scientific guesses about how [they] work.” As she
presents her empty argument, Belluck argues that no studies have
confirmed “that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs
from implanting in the womb” and that these pills only “delay
ovulation.” She heavily refers to a New York Times review, along with
“scientists” and “experts” she forgets to cite, to support her view
that Plan B does not prevent implantation and that “the one-shot dose
in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine
lining.
Disheartened by Belluck’s reporting? Luckily, several renowned
pro-life advocates have written articles against Belluck’s dishonest
claims:
Donna Harrison, The Times’s Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
Gerard Nadal, Responding to the New York Times on ‘Morning After’
Pills: A Factual Recalibration (Part I)
Jeanne Monahan, Emergency Contraception: We need an unbiased review of
the facts
Richard Doerflinger, Letter in Response to NY Times Article of June 6,
2012
Marie T. Hilliard, Are Journalists Now Scientists? A Reporter Loses
Sight of Data on Plan B”
If you go to the website, the articles and essays listed above are
linked, so you can read them yourself.
But, what one would think is good news about the workings of the
morning after pill has been met with skepticism and efforts to contest
the revision of how the morning after pill works.
See what I mean about ideologues?
I'm not yet clear on how representative of the anti-abortion community
the above views are, but I wouldn't be optimistic.
>> >Another "marketing strategy", if you will, is that failure of a fertilized egg to implant as a pregnancy is a common occurrence that happens naturally.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happening naturally is one thing. Happening artificially, which is
>>
>> what we're talking about, is quite another.
>>
>>
>>
>> One is "God's will", the other is abortion.
>
>There seems to be a huge education disconnect here. Even if we were to agree that morning after options work by preventing implantation, it would still not be an abortion. The word abortion refers to aborting a pregnancy. If a fertilized ovum does not implant, then pregnancy never started.
conservatives.
They are the ones who need convincing about the efficacy of emergency
contraception, not me.
>
>> >The crux of the issue is:
>>
>> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
>>
>> >- respect for the new life.
>>
>>
>>
>> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving their internally conflicted dilemma.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the points that people like Murdock and Akin are making is that
>>
>> they don't see anything that results in an abortion as an acceptable
>>
>> compromise, and that emergency contraception is just another form of
>>
>> abortion.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's why they hold the position they do in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not the method of abortion they're taking issue with, it's
>>
>> abortion itself that they oppose.
>
>Let's be clear that BOTH Mourdock and Akin *do* support abortion under a strict set of circumstances. Neither of them maintains a position that they oppose abortion under absolutely every case. So for both of these ultra-extreme people, they have considered certain situations where they arrive at the conclusion that:
>
>"Abortion is the proper course of action in this case. I fully support abortion for her to deal with her pregnancy."
to do with the life of the mother.
That severe limit is one of the things that got them into trouble.
>(Those are my words, as inferred from their words.)
>
>Now imagine if you could help these people get educated to the point where they become aware that 'morning after' is not abortion. That it is a solution that is totally consistent with their stand on respect for life.
Then again... They may not.
>Alternatively, you (or someone else here) might educate me that my understanding is deficient. It is possible that I will read something that will convince me that 'morning after' is an abortion.
medical community.
>> >We do know how to prevent pregnancies from ever happening in these cases, and if presented with the choice of the status quo versus this alternative program that upholds the goal of preventing the pregnancy, I don't see how anyone - whether they stand on either extreme or anywhere in between - I don't see how anyone would not favor the emergency contraception option over abortion.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's almost as if you've not been paying attention to what many of the
>>
>> social conservatives have been saying, or that you don't believe they
>>
>> mean what they're saying...
>>
>>
>>
>> Their position is this...
>>
>>
>>
>> Rape is regrettable, but that doesn't alter the fact that once
>>
>> conceived, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to the same
>>
>> legal protections that any other person is entitled to.
>
>I do understand that this is their position. Perfectly clear.
>
>> There's little room for compromise in that position, which is why both
>>
>> Murdock and Akin, and a whole host of allies, have said what they've
>>
>> said.
>>
>>
>>
>> >So even if a person were to reject my above arguments and maintain that there is some moral obligation to do everything we can to implant a fertilized egg, then even these people would accept the change as an improvement to what we have today.
>>
>>
>>
>> They don't see it as a change from what we have today at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it's done through
>>
>> preventing implantation or termination through some other means.
>
>Now if instead we all get onto the same page as that Princeton understanding, we will know that 'morning after' works by "delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion".
I still wouldn't be optimistic.
>
><snip>
>> >> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
>> >> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
>> >> birth control choices, because they do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You are focusing on a very fine line: the time between conception and implantation, whereas their camp's primary opposition is to the abortion of developing embryos and fetuses.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm focusing?
>>
>>
>>
>> They are the ones who are focusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> It was the religious right who brought this issue up, not me.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are the ones who want to pass personhood laws, with their
>>
>> attendant consequence.
>>
>>
>>
>> And, they are very aware of what those consequences are.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and would be happy to leave
>>
>> the issue alone if only the religious right would also leave it alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, they don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> They want to end abortion, period.
>
>I see the core of their belief to be a basic respect for unborn life. And here I see a lot of merit in what they are bringing to the table. There are plenty of women who use abortion as a primary means of birth control. It's difficult for me to hear people say they are totally satisfied with the way things are now, especially when we today have much smarter means of preventing pregnancy.
means of birth control to use other methods, have at it.
You'll get no argument from me.
However, making abortion illegal as a sort of cudgel to encourage some
irresponsible women to be more responsible isn't an acceptable
solution to me.
>> Neither do they recognize any difference between a fertilized ovum and
>>
>> a developing fetus.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the root of the personhood laws they've recently begun to push,
>>
>> that there is no difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're assuming they see nuance when they've made it clear they do
>>
>> not.
>
>Rape is a special, rare case. And I've already highlighted the fact that even these most extreme of people do support abortion under certain rare cases. Further education can bring about further shift in position.
Perhaps not.
Take Catholics, for example.
They are certain to maintain their objection to the morning after
pill.
After all, they're against -all- forms of birth control.
>> >It is difficult for me to imagine those with the most extreme position to staunchly object to any movement that the vast majority can rally behind that would help them achieve their goal of drastic reductions in the number of abortions that are performed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think your experience with ideologically driven people must be
>>
>> limited.
>>
>>
>>
>> This rather gets back to the point I made in our last discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many social conservatives aren't really interested in preventing
>>
>> abortion, they're interested in preventing sex outside of their
>>
>> preferred religious framework.
>>
>>
>>
>> They see abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and want
>>
>> to remove it from the game.
>
>Excellent point. (...as I remember having previously acknowledged.)
not.
>> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
>>
>> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither is this hyperbole.
>>
>>
>>
>> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
>>
>> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
>>
>> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
>>
>> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
>>
>> other than rape.
>>
>>
>>
>> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
>>
>> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
>>
>> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
>>
>> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
>>
>> goes on.”
>
>I happen to see that as a smart concern. If rape cases are treated differently, then I agree it is important to medically verify that rape actually occurred.
abortion should be broadly available with few exceptions, as
determined by a woman and her doctor.
Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
the case of rape will open?
Who is to decide if a woman has been raped?
Is she going to be interrogated?
Is she going to be inspected for signs of violence?
What if there are no signs of violence?
Is the state going to allow an abortion at the conclusion of a police
investigation, or must a woman wait for the conclusion of a trial
before an abortion is allowed?
There are many questions and implications to such a law, and they
aren't pretty.
continuum of opposition to abortion as a pregnancy progresses.
Perhaps not.
>>Immediately following this comment, he goes on to explain the case where he is in favor of abortion.
I still consider that an overly extreme position.
>Here is the question I would like to see him asked:
>"If a woman is raped, and there is some pill that she could take that would prevent conception from ever happening inside her body, would you be support her in that? Would you support government subsidy of that solution?"
>
>There is absolutely nothing I've seen from anyone on the far right to indicate that any of them would say 'no' to that. It would then follow that if we were all to be in agreement that this is exactly how the morning after solution works, then this issue would be resolved.
Except for Catholics.
They're certain to maintain their objection.
>> You're assuming that what they really mean is "personhood begins at
>>
>> the moment of implantation".
>>
>>
>>
>> They know the difference, and they settled on conception for a reason.
>
>I understand the distinction. What you might want to consider is that their motivation for taking such an extreme position is that they see the pendulum to be so far to the "wrong" side that they feel compelled to drive a hard line to the farthest opposing side just because they see that as the most effective way to get the pendulum to budge one inch toward a rational equilibrium.
position as a negotiating tactic is useful, neither do I believe that
is what they are doing.
>Try for a moment to step into their shoes. Look at today's accepted attitudes and practices of abortion as a present day Holocaust. Can we gain some appreciation as to why they are so urgent in their extreme stand against what is going on? Why so many of them are willing to jump on top of their swords for their cause?
the polls. I think they've persuaded themselves that putting extreme
restrictions on abortion is really the majority position, even in the
face of evidence that it's not.
That's what ideologues frequently do.
>Now imagine that society did NOT use abortion as a means of birth control. Imagine that the vast majority of women who do not want to get pregnant took responsible measures up front to make sure that they don't get pregnant.
I'll again remind you of which side is opposed to practical, effective
sex education.
>In such a world, the problem of unwanted pregnancy is practically solved. These people you see as right-wing monsters have no Holocaust to champion against. Can we not imagine then that the ensuing conversations about how to deal with women who are raped then becomes a much more rational discussion?!
I'm not the one you need to persuade when it comes to sex education.
>These people are dismissed as idiots by everyone today who is blind to the fundamental atrocity that they so clearly see. And they are mocked by the stand they take on the marginal cases (rape, ...) when what they care most about is the casual extermination of human fetuses.
what they care about most.
I believe that what they care about most is preventing sex outside of
their preferred religious framework.
Their opposition to effective sex education and expanded availability
of birth control proves it.
>> As I wrote above, they want to stop all abortion, and they see
>>
>> emergency contraception as just another form of abortion.
>
>These people see an entire house on fire. They urgently want to see hoses taken to extinguish all of the flames. If you come along to point out that fire can be used in certain cases for good things like heating up your food, they will be a lot more open to hearing that *after* the house fire has been extinguished.
The response to the revision in how the morning after pill works has
been "FIRE BAD!!!", so to speak.
>What the media latches onto is the story of that person walking up to the firefighter while they're frantically struggling to put out the fire, and the headline becomes:
>
>"Nutjob firefighter is opposed to using matches for heating up soup."
>> >I totally understand the hard-lined position of conception being sacred.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But serving the public in a democracy is all about finding solutions that the majority can live with.
>>
>>
>>
>> What we have now, abortion on demand in the first trimester, with
>>
>> increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses, is pretty much
>>
>> the majority position, and I can live with it just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right are the ones that need to get on board with the majority
>>
>> position, not the other way around.
>
>I'll ask you again to examine the far right's position for any shred of merit. Is there any possibility that they are firefighters? Can you at least recognize that they see themselves to be?
Were they pressing for improved sex education and expanded
availability of birth control, I might accept that they really are
"firefighters", as you put it.
But, they aren't.
In fact, they're actively trying to sabotage such efforts.
They're far less fighters than they are arsonists, to twist your
metaphor a bit.
>If you answer yes, then perhaps the strategy becomes convincing these people that abortion is a wonderful thing. Kind of like how a park ranger will explain to you that wildfires serve a productive role in renewal of the land.
>
>I myself have yet to be persuaded of the wisdom in the status quo abortion policy and attitudes.
one that makes any real sense.
The bottom line is that there is no way to force a woman to carry a
fetus to term that she doesn't want to carry.
So, it's not really a choice between abortion and no abortion.
It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
I have to come down on the side of safe abortion.
>> >And this is one solution that makes a lot of sense to me regardless of where you may stand on the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are being reasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right are not reasonable.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Ultra-right can embrace it as a major improvement. Everyone else can embrace it as totally sensible.
>>
>>
>>
>> The far right won't see it as an improvement at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the way ideologues are.
>
>
>> As you're the one posting through Google Groups. If this discussion
>>
>> continues, and Google mangles the layout, you're the one responsible
>>
>> for making it comprehensible. :)
>
>Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
I think it now quotes every line in a post instead of just quoting
lines of text.
Anyway, it's on you to keep it comprehensible.
Cheers.
elizabeth
Nov 8, 2012, 5:09:50 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
You're back, Dustbin. FYI, there are a lot of men, and women, who
think that women all lie about rape. Certainly you can get a sense of
how popular that outlook is by a casual perusal of content on many
forums.
Rapists of all kinds insist that no harm is done, and minimizing the
very real harm even a wanted pregnancy does to women is another of
their insane outlooks.
Those who ban abortion and contraception are the very worst sort of
rapists, for they want to make a woman do what he wants with her body,
no matter the harm done, and forcing gestation also results in an
unwanted child, and the record clearly shows that being unwanted is a
very bad thing for a child.
Do learn to stop writing long essays and get to a point.
You're back, Dustbin. FYI, there are a lot of men, and women, who
think that women all lie about rape. Certainly you can get a sense of
how popular that outlook is by a casual perusal of content on many
forums.
Rapists of all kinds insist that no harm is done, and minimizing the
very real harm even a wanted pregnancy does to women is another of
their insane outlooks.
Those who ban abortion and contraception are the very worst sort of
rapists, for they want to make a woman do what he wants with her body,
no matter the harm done, and forcing gestation also results in an
unwanted child, and the record clearly shows that being unwanted is a
very bad thing for a child.
Do learn to stop writing long essays and get to a point.
elizabeth
Nov 8, 2012, 5:16:03 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 7:01 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
Careful, Dustbin Dimwit will write long, convoluted essays and waste a
lot of space on nonsensical puffery.
He sounds like the jerk who takes a Logic 101 Course, barely passes,
and thinks he can outwit anyone.
> You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
Which is nonsense because fertilization is a process that take about
72 hours, and implantation, which often doesn't happen for a
fertilized ova, can take longer. I advised Dustbin before he ran away
to read up on the topic. Apparently he did not.
> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
In a petri dish, even. And a zygote can implant outside a
uterus . .. too bad we don't make "prolife" men get themselves
implanted . . .. it is technically possible for a man to gestate a
fetus.
> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>
> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
But before the start of pregnancy, which is defined as after
implantation.
> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>
> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
> pregnant.
Ahem. If you prevent implantation of a fertilized ova, you have
prevented a pregnancy.
> Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
> time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
> always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
Exactly, and may well be unconscious, etc.
> Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
> those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
> necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
> implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
> birth control.
>
> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
> birth control choices, because they do.
>
> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
> abortion was far too extreme.- Hide quoted text -
And saying that in "real rape" a woman's body prevents
pregnancy , , ,, totally insane. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion,
but not to make up his own facts.
Another GOPhole insisted that pregnancy never kills women in
America.
Total whackadoodles. They let those nutters stay, and wouldn't let
Colin Powell have a chance because he still agrees with Goldwater on
abortion.
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:22:07 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
lot of space on nonsensical puffery.
He sounds like the jerk who takes a Logic 101 Course, barely passes,
and thinks he can outwit anyone.
> You're overlooking that those who believe personhood begins at the
> moment of conception, as Murdock, Akin and many other social
> conservatives do, have no reliable means of preventing raped women
> from becoming pregnant, as you state above.
72 hours, and implantation, which often doesn't happen for a
fertilized ova, can take longer. I advised Dustbin before he ran away
to read up on the topic. Apparently he did not.
> There isn't any effective means of preventing fertilization from
> occurring if both sperm and a viable egg are present.
uterus . .. too bad we don't make "prolife" men get themselves
implanted . . .. it is technically possible for a man to gestate a
fetus.
> There are only drugs that prevent implantation.
>
> Implantation occurs -after- fertilization.
implantation.
> If one believes personhood begins at the moment of conception, drugs
> that prevent implantation are forbidden.
>
> So, no... If one believes that personhood begins at the moment of
> conception, we don't know how to prevent raped women from getting
> pregnant.
prevented a pregnancy.
> Never mind that such drugs need to be applied within a very narrow
> time window, and that many rape victims, for complex reasons, don't
> always seek treatment immediately after the rape occurs.
> Further, while you didn't really address this point in your post,
> those that share the "personhood begins at conception" ideology, must
> necessarily oppose any form of birth control that relies on preventing
> implantation. That would include the IUD and most forms of hormonal
> birth control.
>
> So, it -isn't- an exaggeration to say that those who believe
> personhood begins at conception also favor interfering with women's
> birth control choices, because they do.
>
> Murdock and Akin didn't lose because people thought they favored women
> being raped. They lost because their position in opposition to
And saying that in "real rape" a woman's body prevents
pregnancy , , ,, totally insane. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion,
but not to make up his own facts.
Another GOPhole insisted that pregnancy never kills women in
America.
Total whackadoodles. They let those nutters stay, and wouldn't let
Colin Powell have a chance because he still agrees with Goldwater on
abortion.
elizabeth
Nov 8, 2012, 5:18:43 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 10:08 am, Dino <whate...@homemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:46 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
> On Nov 8, 12:46 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And you are opposed to women having a right to control her own body?
>
> No, but that doesn't mean we are not entitled to view the choice to
> abort as the wrong choice.
> Do you understand the difference loon?
is against abortion, you are in fact ATTEMPTING TO STOP WOMEN FROM
GETTING AN ABORTION?
So, you say, that since Hitler never personally killed a Jew he wasn't
an antisemite? And had nothing to do with the Holocaust?
> Or is it too hard for you to understand?
Kill yourself, Robert J. Heishman.
elizabeth
Nov 8, 2012, 5:20:09 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 10:54 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
> What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
Nope, the alternative is to let all women make up their own minds what
they should do with their own bodies.
It is just not anyone else's business, Dustbin.
> It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
>
> =Dustin
And when you get pregnant, you can weigh those points and make up your
own mind, even though you don't reallly have one . . .
snip
> What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
they should do with their own bodies.
It is just not anyone else's business, Dustbin.
> It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
>
> =Dustin
own mind, even though you don't reallly have one . . .
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 9, 2012, 5:30:57 AM11/9/12
to
Otto, I am choosing to choke down, or funnel, my reply to what I see
to be the most important points. I hope you're ok with that, and I'm
glad to see lots of convergence in where we previously had
discrepancy.
From SilentOtto:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
abortion legal in the case of rape. I was focusing on methods that
could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
first place.
> Who is to decide if a woman has been raped?
>
> Is she going to be interrogated?
>
> Is she going to be inspected for signs of violence?
>
> What if there are no signs of violence?
>
> Is the state going to allow an abortion at the conclusion of a police
> investigation, or must a woman wait for the conclusion of a trial
> before an abortion is allowed?
>
> There are many questions and implications to such a law, and they
> aren't pretty.
Yes, I agree it would be messy. It is possible that if the state
focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
prevented from happening.
> >Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
>
> When they switched to the "new Google groups", it screwed things up.
>
> I think it now quotes every line in a post instead of just quoting
> lines of text.
>
> Anyway, it's on you to keep it comprehensible.
>
> Cheers.
I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out. Wow, I really thought
the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
=Dustin
to be the most important points. I hope you're ok with that, and I'm
glad to see lots of convergence in where we previously had
discrepancy.
From SilentOtto:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> >> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
> >> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
> >> Neither is this hyperbole.
> >> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
> >> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
> >> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
> >> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
> >> other than rape.
> >>
> >> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
> >> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
> >> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
> >> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
> >> goes on.”
>
> >I happen to see that as a smart concern. If rape cases are treated differently, then I agree it is important to medically verify that rape actually occurred.
>
> First, I don't wish to see rapes treated differently. I think
> abortion should be broadly available with few exceptions, as
> determined by a woman and her doctor.
>
> Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
> the case of rape will open?
The point I have been highlighting in this thread is *not* making
>
> >> >On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:01:55 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> >> They don't like exceptions for rape or incest because they fear such
> >> exceptions will be exploited to skirt an abortion ban.
> >> Neither is this hyperbole.
> >> State Sen. Chuck Winder, from Idaho, suggested as much during the
> >> debate over mandatory ultrasound laws in his state. He felt that the
> >> doctors should be questioning women to determine if they were -really-
> >> raped or if perhaps her pregnancy might not be the result of something
> >> other than rape.
> >>
> >> "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape
> >> issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage,
> >> was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it
> >> truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that
> >> goes on.”
>
> >I happen to see that as a smart concern. If rape cases are treated differently, then I agree it is important to medically verify that rape actually occurred.
>
> First, I don't wish to see rapes treated differently. I think
> abortion should be broadly available with few exceptions, as
> determined by a woman and her doctor.
>
> Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
> the case of rape will open?
abortion legal in the case of rape. I was focusing on methods that
could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
first place.
> Who is to decide if a woman has been raped?
>
> Is she going to be interrogated?
>
> Is she going to be inspected for signs of violence?
>
> What if there are no signs of violence?
>
> Is the state going to allow an abortion at the conclusion of a police
> investigation, or must a woman wait for the conclusion of a trial
> before an abortion is allowed?
>
> There are many questions and implications to such a law, and they
> aren't pretty.
focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
prevented from happening.
> >Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
>
> When they switched to the "new Google groups", it screwed things up.
>
> I think it now quotes every line in a post instead of just quoting
> lines of text.
>
> Anyway, it's on you to keep it comprehensible.
>
> Cheers.
the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 9, 2012, 5:48:54 AM11/9/12
to
From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
Hello again, elizabeth. Thank you for your insightful reply.
Yes, I am aware that there are many men who see many women to be
fabricating stories about rape. I hope we can agree that for a
certain percentage of such women, however small that might be, they
actually are fabricating stories.
A simple way to make a more objective assessment is to factually
establish whether the woman had any voluntary activity with the man
prior to the time of the claimed violation. If there is none, no
activity she participated in with him, then that makes it a lot easier
to pick out the cases that are clear. Or at least far more clear than
the other set of cases.
The fuzzy area is when the woman had chosen to do things together with
the man. Here I do not know what is the best way to screen out the
cases that might be fabricated. Lie detector tests? This is
something I would have to research before taking the next step in
attempting to separate the actual vs fabricated.
And let's also be clear that when rape is defined as non-consensual
sex, there is the other extreme of, say, a husband persuading his
wife... she agrees. Then after consensual penetration has occurred,
he says something that turns her off. She decides right then and
there, with him still inside her, that she wants this all to stop.
She unambiguously and unequivocally insists that he get away from her
immediately. He continues.
That man, in choosing to not honor her demand, is now raping his wife.
The claim of rape between two people who know each other and do things
with each other in friendly ways can be a very difficult thing to
substantiate.
=Dustin
Yes, I am aware that there are many men who see many women to be
fabricating stories about rape. I hope we can agree that for a
certain percentage of such women, however small that might be, they
actually are fabricating stories.
A simple way to make a more objective assessment is to factually
establish whether the woman had any voluntary activity with the man
prior to the time of the claimed violation. If there is none, no
activity she participated in with him, then that makes it a lot easier
to pick out the cases that are clear. Or at least far more clear than
the other set of cases.
The fuzzy area is when the woman had chosen to do things together with
the man. Here I do not know what is the best way to screen out the
cases that might be fabricated. Lie detector tests? This is
something I would have to research before taking the next step in
attempting to separate the actual vs fabricated.
And let's also be clear that when rape is defined as non-consensual
sex, there is the other extreme of, say, a husband persuading his
wife... she agrees. Then after consensual penetration has occurred,
he says something that turns her off. She decides right then and
there, with him still inside her, that she wants this all to stop.
She unambiguously and unequivocally insists that he get away from her
immediately. He continues.
That man, in choosing to not honor her demand, is now raping his wife.
The claim of rape between two people who know each other and do things
with each other in friendly ways can be a very difficult thing to
substantiate.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 9, 2012, 5:59:10 AM11/9/12
to
From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
> > It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
pregnancy.
...but imagine if only broke people voted on the issue of food
stamps. If only old people voted on the issue of Social Security.
Such a vote would be totally lacking in balance.
The dilemma in abortion is that the life that is being killed has no
power to speak for itself. Limiting the voice to only women who face
unwanted pregnancy makes for a drastic skew against giving any voice
to those unwanted lives.
=Dustin
> On Nov 8, 10:54 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip
>
> > What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
>
> Nope, the alternative is to let all women make up their own minds what
> they should do with their own bodies.
> It is just not anyone else's business, Dustbin.
Let's not forget that a fetus has a body too.
> snip
>
> > What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
>
> Nope, the alternative is to let all women make up their own minds what
> they should do with their own bodies.
> It is just not anyone else's business, Dustbin.
> > It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
> And when you get pregnant, you can weigh those points and make up your
> own mind, even though you don't reallly have one . . .
It might seem reasonable to have only women weigh in on the issue of
> own mind, even though you don't reallly have one . . .
pregnancy.
...but imagine if only broke people voted on the issue of food
stamps. If only old people voted on the issue of Social Security.
Such a vote would be totally lacking in balance.
The dilemma in abortion is that the life that is being killed has no
power to speak for itself. Limiting the voice to only women who face
unwanted pregnancy makes for a drastic skew against giving any voice
to those unwanted lives.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 9, 2012, 12:16:14 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Otto, I am choosing to choke down, or funnel, my reply to what I see
>to be the most important points. I hope you're ok with that, and I'm
>glad to see lots of convergence in where we previously had
>discrepancy.
No worries.
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Otto, I am choosing to choke down, or funnel, my reply to what I see
>to be the most important points. I hope you're ok with that, and I'm
>glad to see lots of convergence in where we previously had
>discrepancy.
So, there's no "making" necessary and I would vigorously oppose any
attempt to change the current law.
> I was focusing on methods that
>could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
>first place.
about the usefulness of emergency contraception.
That's something of a theme in our discussions, isn't it?
It seems that anything which would reduce the need for abortion,
except abstinence, is opposed by those who claim to hate abortion.
As I pointed out in my last post, it seems that the anti-abortion
movement is aware that the medical community doesn't believe that
emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and it didn't seem to
reduce their opposition.
So, where do you go from there?
>> Who is to decide if a woman has been raped?
>>
>> Is she going to be interrogated?
>>
>> Is she going to be inspected for signs of violence?
>>
>> What if there are no signs of violence?
>>
>> Is the state going to allow an abortion at the conclusion of a police
>> investigation, or must a woman wait for the conclusion of a trial
>> before an abortion is allowed?
>>
>> There are many questions and implications to such a law, and they
>> aren't pretty.
>
>Yes, I agree it would be messy. It is possible that if the state
>focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
>conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
>in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
>
>It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
>to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
>lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
>trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
>prevented from happening.
emergency contraception. They'll likely be actively seeking it.
On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
So, who's going to do the pressing?
Neither do I see forcing women who've been raped to carry a pregnancy
to term as an acceptable means of incentivizing them to come forward
sooner.
I wouldn't have any objection to an education campaign encouraging
women who've been raped to seek treatment immediately, but I wouldn't
support a "carrot and stick" approach- come forward immediately or be
forced to complete the pregnancy- that further victimizes the victim.
>> >Something is messing up the flow here. Curious, because I've been using Google Groups for over a decade without ever having seen this problem before.
>>
>> When they switched to the "new Google groups", it screwed things up.
>>
>> I think it now quotes every line in a post instead of just quoting
>> lines of text.
>>
>> Anyway, it's on you to keep it comprehensible.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
>I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out. Wow, I really thought
>the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
priority.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
elizabeth
Nov 9, 2012, 6:42:59 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:48 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You're back, Dustbin. FYI, there are a lot of men, and women, who
> > think that women all lie about rape. Certainly you can get a sense of
> > how popular that outlook is by a casual perusal of content on many
> > forums.
>
> > Rapists of all kinds insist that no harm is done, and minimizing the
> > very real harm even a wanted pregnancy does to women is another of
> > their insane outlooks.
>
> > Those who ban abortion and contraception are the very worst sort of
> > rapists, for they want to make a woman do what he wants with her body,
> > no matter the harm done, and forcing gestation also results in an
> > unwanted child, and the record clearly shows that being unwanted is a
> > very bad thing for a child.
>
> > Do learn to stop writing long essays and get to a point.
>
> Hello again, elizabeth. Thank you for your insightful reply.
Then stop posting so much bollocks, learn to be concise.
> From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You're back, Dustbin. FYI, there are a lot of men, and women, who
> > think that women all lie about rape. Certainly you can get a sense of
> > how popular that outlook is by a casual perusal of content on many
> > forums.
>
> > Rapists of all kinds insist that no harm is done, and minimizing the
> > very real harm even a wanted pregnancy does to women is another of
> > their insane outlooks.
>
> > Those who ban abortion and contraception are the very worst sort of
> > rapists, for they want to make a woman do what he wants with her body,
> > no matter the harm done, and forcing gestation also results in an
> > unwanted child, and the record clearly shows that being unwanted is a
> > very bad thing for a child.
>
> > Do learn to stop writing long essays and get to a point.
>
> Hello again, elizabeth. Thank you for your insightful reply.
> Yes, I am aware that there are many men who see many women to be
> fabricating stories about rape. I hope we can agree that for a
> certain percentage of such women, however small that might be, they
> actually are fabricating stories.
women lie about rape. When the fact is most women don't bother to
report it, because of asswads like you.
> A simple way to make a more objective assessment is to factually
> establish whether the woman had any voluntary activity with the man
> prior to the time of the claimed violation. If there is none, no
> activity she participated in with him, then that makes it a lot easier
> to pick out the cases that are clear. Or at least far more clear than
> the other set of cases.
elizabeth
Nov 9, 2012, 6:44:54 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:59 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Nov 8, 10:54 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
Dustbin, get assraped and die in agony.
> From elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Nov 8, 10:54 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible.
> > Nope, the alternative is to let all women make up their own minds what
> > they should do with their own bodies.
> > It is just not anyone else's business, Dustbin.
>
> Let's not forget that a fetus has a body too.
matters.
> > > It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
> > And when you get pregnant, you can weigh those points and make up your
> > own mind, even though you don't reallly have one . . .
>
> It might seem reasonable to have only women weigh in on the issue of
> pregnancy.
else.
We happily kill off those people we haven't got the resources to care
for now.
And becauase of that, you are barking mad to think that an unwanted
fetus has any value at all.
elizabeth
Nov 9, 2012, 6:46:06 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:44 am, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What part of it's a decision for the woman and her doctor to decide whether
> or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> shit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a pretentious twit, he's the boy version of "Sophiste" who posted
for a bit back a few years, just some community college freshman who
had delusions of adequacy.
> or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> shit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a pretentious twit, he's the boy version of "Sophiste" who posted
for a bit back a few years, just some community college freshman who
had delusions of adequacy.
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 10, 2012, 3:04:26 AM11/10/12
to
From elizabeth:
Well we at least got one round of respectful exchanges in on this
thread. I will take that as a sign of progress.
...and for now, once again elizabeth, I bid you adieu for the time
being.
The parting words 'adieu' and 'adios' mean the same thing: "(I
commend you) to God". I realize that many people are not receptive to
the spiritual aspect of human existence, so in such cases I offer that
as a simple 'goodbye'. I look forward to the potential for positive
and productive interaction with you on some future thread.
=Dustin
thread. I will take that as a sign of progress.
...and for now, once again elizabeth, I bid you adieu for the time
being.
The parting words 'adieu' and 'adios' mean the same thing: "(I
commend you) to God". I realize that many people are not receptive to
the spiritual aspect of human existence, so in such cases I offer that
as a simple 'goodbye'. I look forward to the potential for positive
and productive interaction with you on some future thread.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 10, 2012, 3:10:46 AM11/10/12
to
From Robert Parker:
are both broadly shared when it comes to this topic. My purpose in
replying to this thread was to offer an explanation for what the other
side was trying to say, and if you totally reject that, I respect your
opinion.
=Dustin
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:54:37 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> >What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible. It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
>
> >=Dustin
>
>
> >=Dustin
>
> What part of it's a decision for the woman and her doctor to decide whether
> or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> shit.
I fully understand your position along with your hostility, as they
> or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> shit.
are both broadly shared when it comes to this topic. My purpose in
replying to this thread was to offer an explanation for what the other
side was trying to say, and if you totally reject that, I respect your
opinion.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 10, 2012, 3:23:23 AM11/10/12
to
From Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com>:
> no standing in the question. I do understand your stupid position that you
> have a right to stick your nose in things that do not concern you. You have
> no such rights.
You are making an excellent point. I, as they say, "don't have a dog
in this fight". The only times I've gotten a woman pregnant were with
the person I married and we were both delighted about the news.
I do empathize with those, both male and female, who face the
situation of unwanted pregnancy. And while I might agree that it is
absolutely none of my business regarding the two of them, the huge
disconnect here between your view and mine is regarding the
representation that is due to the third life involved in the
situation.
Say you are walking down the street and you see a person with their
dog on a leash. As you pass them, you see this person kick this dog
in its face. Then a few more times in their effort to "teach a
lesson" to the dog. None of your business, right?
...or is it.
Take every single word you just replied to me and imagine that coming
out of the dog owners mouth when you choose to call them on their
unnecessary cruelty. Well there are those who view abortion as an
unnecessary cruelty.
=Dustin
> >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> >=Dustin
>
> What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business. You have
>
> >=Dustin
>
> no standing in the question. I do understand your stupid position that you
> have a right to stick your nose in things that do not concern you. You have
> no such rights.
You are making an excellent point. I, as they say, "don't have a dog
in this fight". The only times I've gotten a woman pregnant were with
the person I married and we were both delighted about the news.
I do empathize with those, both male and female, who face the
situation of unwanted pregnancy. And while I might agree that it is
absolutely none of my business regarding the two of them, the huge
disconnect here between your view and mine is regarding the
representation that is due to the third life involved in the
situation.
Say you are walking down the street and you see a person with their
dog on a leash. As you pass them, you see this person kick this dog
in its face. Then a few more times in their effort to "teach a
lesson" to the dog. None of your business, right?
...or is it.
Take every single word you just replied to me and imagine that coming
out of the dog owners mouth when you choose to call them on their
unnecessary cruelty. Well there are those who view abortion as an
unnecessary cruelty.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 10, 2012, 4:04:46 AM11/10/12
to
From SilentOtto:
on promoting methods for outright preventing any rape pregnancies,
then the issue of how to handle raped women getting pregnant trends
toward becoming totally moot.
> > I was focusing on methods that
> >could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
> >first place.
>
> I'll just point out again that it's not my side that needs convincing
> about the usefulness of emergency contraception.
>
> That's something of a theme in our discussions, isn't it?
>
> It seems that anything which would reduce the need for abortion,
> except abstinence, is opposed by those who claim to hate abortion.
>
> As I pointed out in my last post, it seems that the anti-abortion
> movement is aware that the medical community doesn't believe that
> emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and it didn't seem to
> reduce their opposition.
>
> So, where do you go from there?
I was suggesting that even if people believed that EC worked on a
fertilized egg, and not preventing fertilization, I would see that to
be a much easier concession to push for rather than wanting them to be
ok with uterus scraping well after implantation. It would be a huge
gain for them compared to the way things are now, and the other side
would have negligible reason to oppose such a program.
<snip>
easy for rape victims, and well-after-the-fact abortions are
difficult, then the very structure of the system will have a big
effect on decisions that women make. They will have been educated
that their failure to act immediately will carry a huge cost. And
*that* is what motivates them to act responsibly, with the most
consideration for preventing unwanted life from starting.
> Neither do I see forcing women who've been raped to carry a pregnancy
> to term as an acceptable means of incentivizing them to come forward
> sooner.
>
> I wouldn't have any objection to an education campaign encouraging
> women who've been raped to seek treatment immediately, but I wouldn't
> support a "carrot and stick" approach- come forward immediately or be
> forced to complete the pregnancy- that further victimizes the victim.
I see your equation to be lacking consideration for the unborn victim.
A parallel can be seen in the case of a doctor telling a woman that a
lump has been found and that it might be cancerous. The smart course
of action is to have it removed before it becomes a life-threatening
problem. In this case, if a woman wants to risk the possibility that
it will grow inside her body, I see no reason for the government to
step in and interfere with her decision.
...but if the situation is the possibility of a growth inside her
bearing the potential for independent sentient life, then there is a
major step more than simply what the woman wants for her body. Unlike
cancer, it is not her own life that is hanging in the balance in her
decision to let the growth progress. It is a life inside her body
that is distinct from her own life.
Her decision to not take proper action *creates* a new victim when she
makes the decision to kill it off. And this turns the tables where
the victimized now takes on the role of victimizer.
Any woman who is educated to have due regard for the new life will be
far more motivated to prevent that possibility.
Back to the case of cancer, any woman educated to the risks of not
having the suspicious lump removed will be far more motivated to go
ahead with taking immediate action in that situation as well.
<snip>
services featured directly off the Google homepage. Maybe it is a
good thing that Usenet is dying off. I suspect that Google's drop off
in quality of service here is intentional.
What I like about Usenet is how an enduring record gets stored. There
is lots of stuff I had posted to other forums through the years that I
would love to have access in looking back to. A huge chunk of it is
lost forever. When I got hit with the realization that a single admin
had the power to clobber the work I had done, I got into the habit of
storing my own archive.
I am astounded that with all of the progress that has been made with
the internet that we remain so vulnerable because of the lack of a
durable archive of so much stuff. (Though I do expect that the US
govt keeps massive detailed archives including the most obscure stuff
somewhere.)
=Dustin
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >> Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
> >> the case of rape will open?
>
> >The point I have been highlighting in this thread is *not* making
> >abortion legal in the case of rape.
>
> Abortion -is- legal in the case of rape.
>
> So, there's no "making" necessary and I would vigorously oppose any
> attempt to change the current law.
If the focus, instead of imposing any laws (current or new), was made
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >> Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
> >> the case of rape will open?
>
> >The point I have been highlighting in this thread is *not* making
> >abortion legal in the case of rape.
>
> Abortion -is- legal in the case of rape.
>
> So, there's no "making" necessary and I would vigorously oppose any
> attempt to change the current law.
on promoting methods for outright preventing any rape pregnancies,
then the issue of how to handle raped women getting pregnant trends
toward becoming totally moot.
> > I was focusing on methods that
> >could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
> >first place.
>
> I'll just point out again that it's not my side that needs convincing
> about the usefulness of emergency contraception.
>
> That's something of a theme in our discussions, isn't it?
>
> It seems that anything which would reduce the need for abortion,
> except abstinence, is opposed by those who claim to hate abortion.
>
> As I pointed out in my last post, it seems that the anti-abortion
> movement is aware that the medical community doesn't believe that
> emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and it didn't seem to
> reduce their opposition.
>
> So, where do you go from there?
fertilized egg, and not preventing fertilization, I would see that to
be a much easier concession to push for rather than wanting them to be
ok with uterus scraping well after implantation. It would be a huge
gain for them compared to the way things are now, and the other side
would have negligible reason to oppose such a program.
<snip>
> >Yes, I agree it would be messy. It is possible that if the state
> >focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
> >conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
> >in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
>
> >It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
> >to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
> >lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
> >trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
> >prevented from happening.
>
> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
> emergency contraception. They'll likely be actively seeking it.
>
> On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
> reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
>
> So, who's going to do the pressing?
The system can. If the system is set up so that EC is subsidized and
> >focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
> >conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
> >in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
>
> >It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
> >to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
> >lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
> >trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
> >prevented from happening.
>
> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
> emergency contraception. They'll likely be actively seeking it.
>
> On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
> reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
>
> So, who's going to do the pressing?
easy for rape victims, and well-after-the-fact abortions are
difficult, then the very structure of the system will have a big
effect on decisions that women make. They will have been educated
that their failure to act immediately will carry a huge cost. And
*that* is what motivates them to act responsibly, with the most
consideration for preventing unwanted life from starting.
> Neither do I see forcing women who've been raped to carry a pregnancy
> to term as an acceptable means of incentivizing them to come forward
> sooner.
>
> I wouldn't have any objection to an education campaign encouraging
> women who've been raped to seek treatment immediately, but I wouldn't
> support a "carrot and stick" approach- come forward immediately or be
> forced to complete the pregnancy- that further victimizes the victim.
A parallel can be seen in the case of a doctor telling a woman that a
lump has been found and that it might be cancerous. The smart course
of action is to have it removed before it becomes a life-threatening
problem. In this case, if a woman wants to risk the possibility that
it will grow inside her body, I see no reason for the government to
step in and interfere with her decision.
...but if the situation is the possibility of a growth inside her
bearing the potential for independent sentient life, then there is a
major step more than simply what the woman wants for her body. Unlike
cancer, it is not her own life that is hanging in the balance in her
decision to let the growth progress. It is a life inside her body
that is distinct from her own life.
Her decision to not take proper action *creates* a new victim when she
makes the decision to kill it off. And this turns the tables where
the victimized now takes on the role of victimizer.
Any woman who is educated to have due regard for the new life will be
far more motivated to prevent that possibility.
Back to the case of cancer, any woman educated to the risks of not
having the suspicious lump removed will be far more motivated to go
ahead with taking immediate action in that situation as well.
<snip>
> >I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out. Wow, I really thought
> >the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
>
> The new groups seem to be something of a work in progress, with a low
> priority.
I remember the days when Google Groups was one of the first four
> >the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
>
> The new groups seem to be something of a work in progress, with a low
> priority.
services featured directly off the Google homepage. Maybe it is a
good thing that Usenet is dying off. I suspect that Google's drop off
in quality of service here is intentional.
What I like about Usenet is how an enduring record gets stored. There
is lots of stuff I had posted to other forums through the years that I
would love to have access in looking back to. A huge chunk of it is
lost forever. When I got hit with the realization that a single admin
had the power to clobber the work I had done, I got into the habit of
storing my own archive.
I am astounded that with all of the progress that has been made with
the internet that we remain so vulnerable because of the lack of a
durable archive of so much stuff. (Though I do expect that the US
govt keeps massive detailed archives including the most obscure stuff
somewhere.)
=Dustin
Dino
Nov 10, 2012, 11:42:48 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:41 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:54:11 AM UTC-6, Robert Parker wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >The crux of the issue is:
> >> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> >> >- respect for the new life.
>
> >> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> >> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> >> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> >> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> >> Then the self righteous bigots need to understand it's none of their damn
> >> business. It's a decision for the woman and her Doctor. Not nosy busy
> >> bodies with nothing to do but be a stupid ass.
>
> >I totally understand your position.
>
> >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> >=Dustin
>
>
> >> >The crux of the issue is:
> >> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> >> >- respect for the new life.
>
> >> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> >> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> >> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> >> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> >> Then the self righteous bigots need to understand it's none of their damn
> >> business. It's a decision for the woman and her Doctor. Not nosy busy
> >> bodies with nothing to do but be a stupid ass.
>
> >I totally understand your position.
>
> >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> >=Dustin
>
> What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business.
What YOU don't understand is that he and anyone else has the right to
speak his or her opinion.
And YOU will not silence anyone.
Understand?
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 10, 2012, 4:18:13 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
<dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>From SilentOtto:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
>> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >From SilentOtto:
>> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:39:43 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> Second, have you considered the can of worms allowing abortion only in
>> >> the case of rape will open?
>>
>> >The point I have been highlighting in this thread is *not* making
>> >abortion legal in the case of rape.
>>
>> Abortion -is- legal in the case of rape.
>>
>> So, there's no "making" necessary and I would vigorously oppose any
>> attempt to change the current law.
>
>If the focus, instead of imposing any laws (current or new), was made
>on promoting methods for outright preventing any rape pregnancies,
>then the issue of how to handle raped women getting pregnant trends
>toward becoming totally moot.
There's no objection on the left.
However, I think you're on a bit of a fools errand when it comes to
dealing with the far right.
>
>> > I was focusing on methods that
>> >could very well prevent the unwanted pregnancy of occurring in the
>> >first place.
>>
>> I'll just point out again that it's not my side that needs convincing
>> about the usefulness of emergency contraception.
>>
>> That's something of a theme in our discussions, isn't it?
>>
>> It seems that anything which would reduce the need for abortion,
>> except abstinence, is opposed by those who claim to hate abortion.
>>
>> As I pointed out in my last post, it seems that the anti-abortion
>> movement is aware that the medical community doesn't believe that
>> emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and it didn't seem to
>> reduce their opposition.
>>
>> So, where do you go from there?
>
>I was suggesting that even if people believed that EC worked on a
>fertilized egg, and not preventing fertilization, I would see that to
>be a much easier concession to push for rather than wanting them to be
>ok with uterus scraping well after implantation. It would be a huge
>gain for them compared to the way things are now, and the other side
>would have negligible reason to oppose such a program.
And, I understand that it seems like a no-brainer that only an idiot
would oppose.
But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
emergency contraception.
So, again...
What now?
><snip>
>> >Yes, I agree it would be messy. It is possible that if the state
>> >focused on immediate steps for such women that could prevent
>> >conception or implantation, then there would be a significant increase
>> >in the percentage of women who take immediate action.
>>
>> >It may seem lacking in compassion to a lot of people for raped women
>> >to be pressed into immediate action. The counterpoint here is the
>> >lack of compassion in the course of coddling the woman through her
>> >trauma to subsequently kill off the new life that she could have
>> >prevented from happening.
>>
>> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
>> emergency contraception. They'll likely be actively seeking it.
>>
>> On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
>> reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
>>
>> So, who's going to do the pressing?
>
>The system can. If the system is set up so that EC is subsidized and
>easy for rape victims, and well-after-the-fact abortions are
>difficult, then the very structure of the system will have a big
>effect on decisions that women make. They will have been educated
>that their failure to act immediately will carry a huge cost. And
>*that* is what motivates them to act responsibly, with the most
>consideration for preventing unwanted life from starting.
from trauma induced mental illness frequently don't act rationally.
Your "solution" can only work for the rational, and they don't really
need it.
It won't work for those who are irrational, because they are
-irrational-.
Lacking the ability to do the rational thing is why we call them
irrational in the first place.
Why would you think threats can make an irrational person act
rationally, and why would you want to impose a "punishment pregnancy",
so to speak, on women who aren't capable of making a rational choice
at the time such a choice needs to be made?
>> Neither do I see forcing women who've been raped to carry a pregnancy
>> to term as an acceptable means of incentivizing them to come forward
>> sooner.
>>
>> I wouldn't have any objection to an education campaign encouraging
>> women who've been raped to seek treatment immediately, but I wouldn't
>> support a "carrot and stick" approach- come forward immediately or be
>> forced to complete the pregnancy- that further victimizes the victim.
>
>I see your equation to be lacking consideration for the unborn victim.
trauma induced mental illness.
Further, while you talk a good game about persuasion, I can't help but
notice you've little difficulty in using coercion to get the result
you want when persuasion fails.
In that respect, you're little different from the rest of those who
oppose abortion and are willing to use force to get their way.
I'll go along with the "carrot" approach, but not the "stick".
While I understand your concern over a developing fetus, the fact
remains that there is a very real qualitative difference between a
person and a potential person that exists until very late in a
pregnancy.
Any decision that limits abortion has to revolve around what -is- at
the time of the abortion, as opposed to what -might be- in the future.
I read your following hypothetical, and I didn't find it persuasive.
>What I like about Usenet is how an enduring record gets stored. There
>is lots of stuff I had posted to other forums through the years that I
>would love to have access in looking back to. A huge chunk of it is
>lost forever. When I got hit with the realization that a single admin
>had the power to clobber the work I had done, I got into the habit of
>storing my own archive.
>
>I am astounded that with all of the progress that has been made with
>the internet that we remain so vulnerable because of the lack of a
>durable archive of so much stuff. (Though I do expect that the US
>govt keeps massive detailed archives including the most obscure stuff
>somewhere.)
While it will contain a lot of crap, the unfiltered nature of usenet
should be valuable to future historians, who, removed from our time by
hundreds of years, are trying to come to grips with how the average
person thought in this era and how it relates to the way events
unfolded.
This is the first time in human history that such a record has been
available, and it would be a shame to lose it.
elizabeth
Nov 10, 2012, 6:18:53 PM11/10/12
to
clear to you when you barged into the ng spewing gibberish before.
> Well we at least got one round of respectful exchanges in on this
> thread. I will take that as a sign of progress.
is so common.
> ...and for now, once again elizabeth, I bid you adieu for the time
> being.
> The parting words 'adieu' and 'adios' mean the same thing: "(I
> commend you) to God". I realize that many people are not receptive to
> the spiritual aspect of human existence, so in such cases I offer that
> as a simple 'goodbye'. I look forward to the potential for positive
> and productive interaction with you on some future thread.
>
May Kali Ma treat you with the same compassion that you treat women,
and may you be reborn as the last woman infibulated.
elizabeth
Nov 10, 2012, 6:20:47 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:10 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From Robert Parker:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:54:37 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > >What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible. It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What part of it's a decision for the woman and her doctor to decide whether
> > or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> > compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> > shit.
And here we go again.
> From Robert Parker:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:54:37 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > >What a mature society we live in. The alternative is that we work together and figure this out in the best way possible. It is called a dilemma for a reason. The word indicates that there are valid points on both sides of this.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What part of it's a decision for the woman and her doctor to decide whether
> > or not to have an abortion. The fetus has no rights until it's born that
> > compels the woman to carry to term. As always you are a stupid pile of
> > shit.
> I fully understand your position along with your hostility,
never met, based on what you read in a ng.
As the record reflects, last time you were here, you spewed the same
bullshit, had your fat ass handed to you, and then you ran away.
And yet, you came back, expecting what?
> as they
> are both broadly shared when it comes to this topic. My purpose in
> replying to this thread was to offer an explanation for what the other
> side was trying to say, and if you totally reject that, I respect your
> opinion.
and whatever "they" are.
> =Dustin
elizabeth
Nov 10, 2012, 6:25:51 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:23 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business. You have
> > no standing in the question. I do understand your stupid position that you
> > have a right to stick your nose in things that do not concern you. You have
> > no such rights.
Fuck off and die, Dustbin, you just don't want to get it, so you
> From Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business. You have
> > no standing in the question. I do understand your stupid position that you
> > have a right to stick your nose in things that do not concern you. You have
> > no such rights.
won't.
> You are making an excellent point. I, as they say, "don't have a dog
> in this fight". The only times I've gotten a woman pregnant were with
> the person I married and we were both delighted about the news.
woman, and YOU never need worry about sexual coercion and forced
gestation, which is a horrible REALITY for almost all of the women in
the world.
And that is why you get no respect in here. YOu simply don't deserve
any respect for such idiot, facile bullshit.
> I do empathize with those, both male and female, who face the
> situation of unwanted pregnancy.
> And while I might agree that it is
> absolutely none of my business regarding the two of them, the huge
> disconnect here between your view and mine is regarding the
> representation that is due to the third life involved in the
> situation.
There are over 7 billion HUMAN BEINGS on the planet, and most of them
are suffering, millions die every year BECAUSE WE ARE OVERPOPULATED
AND SIMPLY CAN'T PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR ALL.
Thus, anyone who feels that a nonsentient zygote, embryo, or fetus has
any right to use the body of an unwilling woman is clearly barking
mad, and really should be spayed, neutered, or euthenized.
> Say you are walking down the street and you see a person with their
> dog on a leash. As you pass them, you see this person kick this dog
> in its face. Then a few more times in their effort to "teach a
> lesson" to the dog. None of your business, right?
> ...or is it.
We hardly ever treat animal abuse seriously, as the record reflects,
and almost all the horrible torture of animals is done by males.
"Boys will be boys" when they torture pets. Etc.
> Take every single word you just replied to me and imagine that coming
> out of the dog owners mouth when you choose to call them on their
> unnecessary cruelty. Well there are those who view abortion as an
> unnecessary cruelty.
Go fuck your mother, the entire Iraqi Army did.
elizabeth
Nov 10, 2012, 6:27:41 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 8:42 am, Dino <whate...@homemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:41 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:54:11 AM UTC-6, Robert Parker wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> >The crux of the issue is:
> > >> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> > >> >- respect for the new life.
>
> > >> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> > >> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> > >> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> > >> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> > >> Then the self righteous bigots need to understand it's none of their damn
> > >> business. It's a decision for the woman and her Doctor. Not nosy busy
> > >> bodies with nothing to do but be a stupid ass.
>
> > >I totally understand your position.
>
> > >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business.
What you don't understand is no one is trying to silence either YOU,
> On Nov 9, 2:41 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:54:11 AM UTC-6, Robert Parker wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> >The crux of the issue is:
> > >> >- respect for the woman's needs, vs
> > >> >- respect for the new life.
>
> > >> >When these people who maintain the extreme position of being against
> > >> >scraping a raped woman's uterus, they might see state-subsidized
> > >> >emergency contraception to be an acceptable compromise for resolving
> > >> >their internally conflicted dilemma.
>
> > >> Then the self righteous bigots need to understand it's none of their damn
> > >> business. It's a decision for the woman and her Doctor. Not nosy busy
> > >> bodies with nothing to do but be a stupid ass.
>
> > >I totally understand your position.
>
> > >The biggest difference I see between your view and mine is that I understand their position as well as yours.
>
> > >=Dustin
>
> > What you don't understand is that it's none of your damn business.
Robert J. Heishman, or Dustbin Dimwit.
> What YOU don't understand is that he and anyone else has the right to
> speak his or her opinion.
> And YOU will not silence anyone.
ASKED FOR IT.
> Understand?
Too bad you don't see why you can't even use your own name in here,
Heishman, because YOU had to run away from YOUR OWN WORDS.
You might want to avoid ridicule by silencing yourself, or would that
make sense?
> You have
>
>
>
> > no standing in the question. I do understand your stupid position that you
> > have a right to stick your nose in things that do not concern you. You have
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2012, 3:50:31 AM11/14/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:18:21 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From SilentOtto:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
> emergency contraception.
>
> So, again...
>
> What now?
I'm a big fan of knowledge and education. If substantial evidence is gained that EC works by preventing conception, then the only remaining hurdle is education.
> emergency contraception.
>
> So, again...
>
> What now?
<snip>
> >> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
> >> emergency contraception. �They'll likely be actively seeking it.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
> >> reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
> >>
> >> So, who's going to do the pressing?
> >
> >The system can. If the system is set up so that EC is subsidized and
> >easy for rape victims, and well-after-the-fact abortions are
> >difficult, then the very structure of the system will have a big
> >effect on decisions that women make. They will have been educated
> >that their failure to act immediately will carry a huge cost. And
> >*that* is what motivates them to act responsibly, with the most
> >consideration for preventing unwanted life from starting.
>
> Once again, you still don't seem to understand that people suffering
> from trauma induced mental illness frequently don't act rationally.
>
> Your "solution" can only work for the rational, and they don't really
> need it.
>
> It won't work for those who are irrational, because they are
> -irrational-.
>
> Lacking the ability to do the rational thing is why we call them
> irrational in the first place.
>
> Why would you think threats can make an irrational person act
> rationally, and why would you want to impose a "punishment pregnancy",
> so to speak, on women who aren't capable of making a rational choice
> at the time such a choice needs to be made?
First off, I am not advocating threatening anyone. I was envisioning a system where a woman's failure to act promptly would carry a huge cost. Ideally this would not be an artificially imposed cost, but rather a natural one - similar to how people are motivated to see a dentist when they have a cavity because waiting makes the problem worse. No one is threatening them to go see the dentist. People just weigh the natural cost of not seeing the dentist and conclude that it is too high.
> >> On the other hand, many women who've been raped don't, for complex
> >> reasons that I'm not willing to judge, come forward immediately.
> >>
> >> So, who's going to do the pressing?
> >
> >The system can. If the system is set up so that EC is subsidized and
> >easy for rape victims, and well-after-the-fact abortions are
> >difficult, then the very structure of the system will have a big
> >effect on decisions that women make. They will have been educated
> >that their failure to act immediately will carry a huge cost. And
> >*that* is what motivates them to act responsibly, with the most
> >consideration for preventing unwanted life from starting.
>
> Once again, you still don't seem to understand that people suffering
> from trauma induced mental illness frequently don't act rationally.
>
> Your "solution" can only work for the rational, and they don't really
> need it.
>
> It won't work for those who are irrational, because they are
> -irrational-.
>
> Lacking the ability to do the rational thing is why we call them
> irrational in the first place.
>
> Why would you think threats can make an irrational person act
> rationally, and why would you want to impose a "punishment pregnancy",
> so to speak, on women who aren't capable of making a rational choice
> at the time such a choice needs to be made?
So the system can be set up to communicate the cost of not taking immediate action. Education again can be a critical aspect of that. If people learn to see unborn life as non-disposable, if people gain a due respect for the entity that is created post-conception growing toward a full human baby, then it might be possible for people to gain enough empathy for what this potential has - enough so that they choose to act immediately.
Earlier on this forum I compared the meeting of ovum & sperm to that of the two separate tubes that when combined make epoxy glue. The moment of those two components coming together is a very special moment. And if you don't want the end result of getting glued to your chair, say, then the educated person will take extraordinary measures for preventing those two epoxy tube contents from ever coming together.
It is the foolish person who acts haphazardly with the two tubes, just because they know that doctors have the ability to scalpel their thighs off of the wooden chair.
The wise person is further aware that such a cutting procedure bears the risk of physical scars, as well as emotional scars from the pain and trauma.
Say this enlightened society hears from a person who proudly proclaims:
"I've been cut away from dozens of chairs. It's a quick procedure and I'm totally ok with all of my decisions leading up to those events. And I'm totally ok with living with the aftermath."
This person will clearly be seen by the society as lacking in both knowledge and skill, as well as not having learned from past mistakes.
The enlightened society does not have to make any of their own mistakes, because the history records of people in the past who have glued themselves to chairs is enough of a lesson.
<snip>
> >I see your equation to be lacking consideration for the unborn victim.
>
> I see yours as lacking in a basic understanding of the implications of
> trauma induced mental illness.
>
> Further, while you talk a good game about persuasion, I can't help but
> notice you've little difficulty in using coercion to get the result
> you want when persuasion fails.
>
> In that respect, you're little different from the rest of those who
> oppose abortion and are willing to use force to get their way.
>
> I'll go along with the "carrot" approach, but not the "stick".
>
> While I understand your concern over a developing fetus, the fact
> remains that there is a very real qualitative difference between a
> person and a potential person that exists until very late in a
> pregnancy.
We are in total agreement that there is a HUGE difference between a non-viable fetus and one that can live apart from its mother.
>
> I see yours as lacking in a basic understanding of the implications of
> trauma induced mental illness.
>
> Further, while you talk a good game about persuasion, I can't help but
> notice you've little difficulty in using coercion to get the result
> you want when persuasion fails.
>
> In that respect, you're little different from the rest of those who
> oppose abortion and are willing to use force to get their way.
>
> I'll go along with the "carrot" approach, but not the "stick".
>
> While I understand your concern over a developing fetus, the fact
> remains that there is a very real qualitative difference between a
> person and a potential person that exists until very late in a
> pregnancy.
If we were talking epoxy here, the question would be:
"Just because we can pull the glued pieces apart, does that mean we should?!"
In this analogy, it can be difficult to see the reasons why to or why not do so. Instead, let's consider a completely different scenario...
(And this scenario is a very long one, but I see it to be completely worthwhile.)
You are walking on one side of a river, and you want to cross over to the other side. The river is far too wide and strong for you to swim across. You notice that on your side there is a forest, and you have an axe. You decide that you will make a canoe so that you can get across to the other side.
You are well aware that this is a project that will take a lot of energy and a good deal of time. Let's say nine months. Ok, from the multitude of trees, you chop one down and through many days of development, you've crafted a perfectly adequate canoe that you can use to cross the river.
Excellent. That big day comes. You hop into your canoe, launched on that journey to get you across the river. Everything went according to your original plan. You make it to the opposite bank and you hop out of the canoe. You have no need for it anymore and it becomes a burden to you if you had any thought of wanting to carry it in case you encounter another river.
That night you get cold. You don't see much for firewood on this side, so the thought comes to you that you can burn your canoe. It will keep you quite toasty. And you have absolutely no need for it as a vessel any more. So that's what you do. You burn it. You stay nice and warm. You feel no sense of loss even though you had grown quite attached to that canoe when you needed it during the day to get across the river.
Would anyone look at this scenario and see the burning of the canoe as a travesty? A tragic waste? I don't. On the contrary, it seems to be a perfectly smart use of resources.
Ok. New situation...
Let's go back in time to *before* you launched the canoe. You're still on the original side of the river. You've spent a long time building that canoe for this one specific purpose. What would we say now if you, on this side of the river, decide to burn your fully formed canoe? Well clearly this is a totally different situation from wanting to burn it *after* the river crossing. If you burn your canoe before you use it, it will be a total waste of its original purpose.
What could we say about a person who spent 9 months building a canoe, and then decided to burn it before ever using it?
Well, one obvious answer is that it is their canoe and they can do whatever they want with it!
Another obvious answer is that it is a spectacular waste of effort. You had all those trees on your side of the river. If you wanted to build a fire, you could just chop down another tree and burn it instead of your canoe. Then you'd have all the advantages of the fire *and* you'd still have a perfectly viable canoe after your fire was done.
All of this canoe talk has been for the intention of illuminating the very crux of the abortion issue that you've highlighted:
"...there is a very real qualitative difference between a person and a potential person that exists until very late in a pregnancy."
What can abortion possibly have to do with canoes? Well the analogy is that the canoe is the human body. Launching the canoe into the river is birth. The ship leaves its 'berthing', if you will, to venture into the currents of life. Reaching the opposite bank of the river is death. No one needs their body after death, so if it gets cremated lots of people would agree that the burning of the human body after death does not cause any moral quandary.
Well look at that... I just used the word 'moral' for the first time in this story. Actually, we can leave morality out of the scenario and just consider the practicality of it all.
The crux of the abortion issue is whether or not it is ok to terminate a life that is developing into a human baby.
In the canoe scenario, the question would be whether it is ok to burn (or otherwise destroy) a canoe that is being built.
Here it becomes perfectly clear that the issue of whether the wood is a felled tree or whether it is a viable canoe is a very silly argument in practical terms. And that is because *any* development that's been made beyond the initial chopping down the tree become a complete waste if you decide to burn the "proto-canoe" instead of choosing a tree that has not had this process begun.
The crafting of a canoe is a very special event, and it matters little to say that the job is 1% complete or that it is 100% complete. Nor does it matter to distinguish that fine point prior to 100% when you have a viable floating vessel even though you were only, say, 85% done with the job.
ANY development at all is a waste if you decide to destroy your proto-canoe.
Ok, it would be easy to criticize this analogy because crafting canoes does not fit perfectly with the case of human gestation. Well no analogy is perfect, or they wouldn't be called an analogy.
One of the most obvious disconnects is that most people do not see gestation to require any effort in crafting an embryo or fetus or baby. The process just happens "naturally". Well if no entity is recognized as crafting this new body and the process just happens all by itself, then can't we conclude that destroying the "unfinished canoe" is not much of a waste in practical terms?
Well what would it change if the forest was a magical forest where canoes could be built with the tiniest of effort? All that you need to do is select a particular tree, walk up to it, touch its bark and say, "I want you to turn into a canoe."
Step back and watch in amazement as the tree tips itself over, wood chips start flying off all by themselves, and the end result is a spectacularly ornate river-crossing vessel that built itself - or with no effort at all that you can discern, after that one small act you did to get the process started. You also notice that this magical self-building boat is far more beautiful than anything you have the skill to make with your own hands. It has all kinds of features that you can't even understand. You just marvel at it.
Ok, in this situation does that make it any better to destroy the vessel at any point after you had initiated the process? On the contrary! Many people would now consider it to be a MUCH WORSE thing for you to destroy it, because this magical canoe is so much more special that any major-effort hack job that you could have built.
So now say that you happen across a village where you find the people there THINK NOTHING of burning such magical self building canoes. Would it matter to you at all if they say:
"Well, we don't burn any canoes after they've progressed past the 33% point."
Would it be a stretch to imagine that your reaction to these villagers is to desperately try to wake them up to the magnificence of the forest they have? You persist in telling them that they are not giving their boat building process the respect it deserves. You see it as an amazingly wonderful thing that is worse than an utter waste to "abort".
You find yourself on a campaign to educate the entire village that if they want a fire, just chop a tree down *without* starting the magical self-building boat process. You teach them all of the technology on how to have all the joy and warmth of fire without needing to destroy what you recognize as amazing works of art.
But these villagers do not care. The canoe self-building process is so ubiquitous that they actually see their value system to be superior to yours. They actually see their boat burning to be *helping* their society by preventing an "overpopulation of boats".
Your counter-argument, as you find yourself impassioned by, is that they have everything they need to know in how to prevent the boat-building process from ever starting in the first place!
The majority of the villagers mock you and brand you as a "right wing nut job".
But all is not lost. Some of the villagers heard you and understand you. Some of them agree with you. And they have decided to help share your message of how special the boat building process is, and is worthy of being given due regard.
You remain hopeful that one day the village will reach a turning point where a critical mass of people uphold due regard for the boat building process. Gone will be that era where boats were wantonly destroyed. No justifications will be given that it was only 7% complete, or whatever.
Likewise, no one will be seen as moral or immoral for their choice. What will be crystal clear is that anyone contemplating the decision of burning a boat will be questioning how smart that course of action would be.
It will be so obvious that the smartest choice is to not start the process in the first place. And when it comes time that you want a boat, then you can take full joy in the entire experience.
> Any decision that limits abortion has to revolve around what -is- at
> the time of the abortion, as opposed to what -might be- in the future.
If somehow we could all see the process of conception to the development of a human body from those two cells to be a spectacularly amazing event that is worthy of due regard, then everyone would be a lot more deliberate on their actions and intentions when it came to mating.
It is clear to me that the healthiest approach toward making abortion a non-issue is to get full knowledge and education on just how amazing human gestation is, so that we all act with a lot more wisdom when it comes to our choices that may start that process versus confidently preventing it through effective means that we have available today.
For anyone who might not be into canoes, I'll offer this...
Imagine a car factory. Customers order a car, and the factory builds what was ordered. Now say that for whatever reason, the customer has a change of heart and chooses to cancel the order. What would we say of a factory that had a policy that any cancelled order would have that particular customer's car pulled off the line at whatever stage of completion it was at and it would get melted down.
Surely everyone would recognize that this policy would be a huge waste. The obvious fixes for eliminating this waste would be to have customers fully commit when placing their order. Either that, or finish building the car and have it go to a different customer when it was completed.
Well we don't have a society that trashes partially built Fords anytime a customer changes their mind. Why do we have a society that literally trashes partially developed human bodies?! We trash them, and then think nothing of it.
Or we do feel something. But we do our best to suppress those feelings.
The standard rational is that a partially developed human body is not worthy of any respect. There is some magic point when "the glue hardens", and then all of a sudden it becomes worthy of respect.
> I read your following hypothetical, and I didn't find it persuasive.
>
>
> >A parallel can be seen in the case of a doctor telling a woman that a
> >lump has been found and that it might be cancerous. The smart course
> >of action is to have it removed before it becomes a life-threatening
> >problem. In this case, if a woman wants to risk the possibility that
> >it will grow inside her body, I see no reason for the government to
> >step in and interfere with her decision.
> >
> >...but if the situation is the possibility of a growth inside her
> >bearing the potential for independent sentient life, then there is a
> >major step more than simply what the woman wants for her body. Unlike
> >cancer, it is not her own life that is hanging in the balance in her
> >decision to let the growth progress. It is a life inside her body
> >that is distinct from her own life.
> >
> >Her decision to not take proper action *creates* a new victim when she
> >makes the decision to kill it off. And this turns the tables where
> >the victimized now takes on the role of victimizer.
> >
> >Any woman who is educated to have due regard for the new life will be
> >far more motivated to prevent that possibility.
> >
> >Back to the case of cancer, any woman educated to the risks of not
> >having the suspicious lump removed will be far more motivated to go
> >ahead with taking immediate action in that situation as well.
> >
> ><snip>
> >> >the folks at Google were a lot smarter than that.
> >>
> >> The new groups seem to be something of a work in progress, with a low
> >> priority.
> >
> >I remember the days when Google Groups was one of the first four
> >services featured directly off the Google homepage. Maybe it is a
> >good thing that Usenet is dying off. I suspect that Google's drop off
> >in quality of service here is intentional.
>
> Intentional or not, there has certainly been a drop-off in service.
"New and improved!" I learned about phrase on my cereal boxes that as a small kid. And look what Google's done with their image search. They took away the great set of size filter options. Now I have to hack my url just to do a simple image search! Who'da thunk that Steve Jobs dying would drag Google down too?!
> >>
> >> The new groups seem to be something of a work in progress, with a low
> >> priority.
> >
> >I remember the days when Google Groups was one of the first four
> >services featured directly off the Google homepage. Maybe it is a
> >good thing that Usenet is dying off. I suspect that Google's drop off
> >in quality of service here is intentional.
>
> Intentional or not, there has certainly been a drop-off in service.
> >What I like about Usenet is how an enduring record gets stored. There
> >is lots of stuff I had posted to other forums through the years that I
> >would love to have access in looking back to. A huge chunk of it is
> >lost forever. When I got hit with the realization that a single admin
> >had the power to clobber the work I had done, I got into the habit of
> >storing my own archive.
> >
> >I am astounded that with all of the progress that has been made with
> >the internet that we remain so vulnerable because of the lack of a
> >durable archive of so much stuff. (Though I do expect that the US
> >govt keeps massive detailed archives including the most obscure stuff
> >somewhere.)
>
> I also like the idea of an enduring archive.
>
> While it will contain a lot of crap, the unfiltered nature of usenet
> should be valuable to future historians, who, removed from our time by
> hundreds of years, are trying to come to grips with how the average
> person thought in this era and how it relates to the way events
> unfolded.
>
> This is the first time in human history that such a record has been
> available, and it would be a shame to lose it.
As for my one reply to you here, I probably should have stated up front that I was going to post a LOT more words than most people would care to read. I do hope that you find it interesting enough to read it in full. And even if you don't, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that it will be archived for anyone who might happen across it and find it to be useful.
...although I expect that one person finding it useful will be my future self when I look back on this post and wonder why I didn't edit it down to communicate more concisely!
I could take more time to review it with the goal of distilling it down, but I'm just going to post as is. Sometimes important nuances can get lost in that process. So if anyone finds these points to be valuable, I'll offer this as a rough draft that can be built upon for the future.
And I look forward to that future where we can look back on previous approaches to the abortion issue as being a pursuit of wasteful strategies. If we were to draw a Venn diagram of the issue today, we'd see two circles that overlap some. It would be great if both sides took a deep dive into that region to see that everyone can find a significant sense of satisfaction there.
In that region we find the Respect for life that the Right holds dear, *and* the Practicality that the Left holds dear.
Is there anyone on the Left who would want Ford to melt down partially built cars simply because their customer changed their mind? No.
Is there anyone on the Right who would want Epoxy sold with no caps on the tubes, counting on the hope that the mixture would be prevented simply by timing the squeezes properly? No.
Within that realm that is the common ground, we can gain clarity of what the smartest solutions are. To paraphrase the words of wisdom we learned when we were very young...
+++++++++++++++++++++
Paddle, paddle, paddle your canoe,
Gently across the river,
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a sliver.
+++++++++++++++++++++
=Dustin
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2012, 4:55:16 AM11/14/12
to
<snip all>
In the previous post, human conception and gestation was compared to several different things like epoxy repair, canoe building and a Ford assembly line.
But the entity being constructed is far more complex than all of that. Imagine a factory where Honda ASIMO robots were being assembled. Now imagine a future time where the latest generation of ASIMO's were nearly indistinguishable from human beings. And imagine that each ASIMO were constructed by a totally automated process that required absolutely no effort - no workers, no supervisors, not even any engineers to design it. Everything was totally taken care of, and the process -once started- works all on its own.
Well the situation we have today is that we already have billions of these "factories" and what they produce is WAY more capable than the best ASIMO. Those factories are called the female womb. And the output is brand new human beings.
No car company makes a regular practice of destroying partially built cars. Or if there was such a company, its stockholders certainly would be pressing the CEO for an accounting of this practice that is obviously so wasteful.
Imagine Honda building the best ASIMO's, but then crushing a significant portion right there on the assembly line, why? Well, for any number of reasons. Is it possible for us to imagine that the majority of stockholders would be ok with that?
Well we are the stockholders of Planet Earth. Are we really ok with the status quo and the level of value that we currently place on life that is in the process of developing into brand new human beings?
And if that angle seems straightforward enough, there was one key aspect that I did not emphasize in the previous post:
The canoes were presented as the flesh & blood bodies. But there was also a person riding in the canoe for that vehicle to realize its purpose. For those who recognize the spiritual dimension of life, that presence within the vessel is the human soul. For those who see the world in a strict materialist sense, then that component of the canoe can be recognized as the human consciousness.
In either case, that is a vitally important aspect of the entire abortion issue. At what point in "carving a canoe" does that element get integrated? The latest anyone says is at the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.
Well we can conceive of a thought experiment to prove this belief as deficient. Is the inhaling of gaseous air really the necessary step? Well there are women who choose to deliver underwater. And for adults the Navy has developed a technology where fluid is sufficiently oxygenated to the point where our lungs can breathe the fluid.
...so the thought experiment is this:
Combine the two things - the water birth along with the special breathable fluid. We can imagine that there would be a baby born into such a fluid environment and then be able to live its life breathing this special fluid. The baby could grow up and never take a single breath of air. Food nutrients could be provided through an IV. Its entire development from conception to however many years of age would be in fluid. For anyone who believed that human life began with the first breath of air, then they'd be faced with a very strange conclusion that this person who had never taken a single breath of air was not alive, even though they'd be fully functional.
So we'd be faced with the conclusion that the baby's life as a full human being began independently from that first breath. We would realize that it most likely began at some point during gestation within the womb.
When this concept of being or becoming fully human is taken into consideration, then we are faced with the possibility that abortion, at some point in development, could be causing the termination of a fully human life. The obvious region here would be anywhere past the point of viability. But exactly how much sooner than viability that "the canoe and paddler" become integrated would be a major question to have resolved.
For the case where a car company engages in the regular practice of crushing not yet fully completed cars, if we don't recognize that as a huge avoidable waste, imagine how we would feel if their policy was that before the car was pulled off the line to be crushed, they'd have the customer who cancelled their order strap into the car and stay there for the crushing.
There might be some who are lacking in sympathy who might say that the owner should be held responsible for their decision. But then imagine that it is not them who is put in the car to be crushed, but rather someone else - someone who had absolutely no say in the decision to cancel the order knowing that the car would be crushed.
For those who believe that abortion, or certain abortions, snuff out a human soul or consciousness, then the act has far more impact than the mere materialist version of the issue that I had presented in the previous post.
=Dustin
In the previous post, human conception and gestation was compared to several different things like epoxy repair, canoe building and a Ford assembly line.
But the entity being constructed is far more complex than all of that. Imagine a factory where Honda ASIMO robots were being assembled. Now imagine a future time where the latest generation of ASIMO's were nearly indistinguishable from human beings. And imagine that each ASIMO were constructed by a totally automated process that required absolutely no effort - no workers, no supervisors, not even any engineers to design it. Everything was totally taken care of, and the process -once started- works all on its own.
Well the situation we have today is that we already have billions of these "factories" and what they produce is WAY more capable than the best ASIMO. Those factories are called the female womb. And the output is brand new human beings.
No car company makes a regular practice of destroying partially built cars. Or if there was such a company, its stockholders certainly would be pressing the CEO for an accounting of this practice that is obviously so wasteful.
Imagine Honda building the best ASIMO's, but then crushing a significant portion right there on the assembly line, why? Well, for any number of reasons. Is it possible for us to imagine that the majority of stockholders would be ok with that?
Well we are the stockholders of Planet Earth. Are we really ok with the status quo and the level of value that we currently place on life that is in the process of developing into brand new human beings?
And if that angle seems straightforward enough, there was one key aspect that I did not emphasize in the previous post:
The canoes were presented as the flesh & blood bodies. But there was also a person riding in the canoe for that vehicle to realize its purpose. For those who recognize the spiritual dimension of life, that presence within the vessel is the human soul. For those who see the world in a strict materialist sense, then that component of the canoe can be recognized as the human consciousness.
In either case, that is a vitally important aspect of the entire abortion issue. At what point in "carving a canoe" does that element get integrated? The latest anyone says is at the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.
Well we can conceive of a thought experiment to prove this belief as deficient. Is the inhaling of gaseous air really the necessary step? Well there are women who choose to deliver underwater. And for adults the Navy has developed a technology where fluid is sufficiently oxygenated to the point where our lungs can breathe the fluid.
...so the thought experiment is this:
Combine the two things - the water birth along with the special breathable fluid. We can imagine that there would be a baby born into such a fluid environment and then be able to live its life breathing this special fluid. The baby could grow up and never take a single breath of air. Food nutrients could be provided through an IV. Its entire development from conception to however many years of age would be in fluid. For anyone who believed that human life began with the first breath of air, then they'd be faced with a very strange conclusion that this person who had never taken a single breath of air was not alive, even though they'd be fully functional.
So we'd be faced with the conclusion that the baby's life as a full human being began independently from that first breath. We would realize that it most likely began at some point during gestation within the womb.
When this concept of being or becoming fully human is taken into consideration, then we are faced with the possibility that abortion, at some point in development, could be causing the termination of a fully human life. The obvious region here would be anywhere past the point of viability. But exactly how much sooner than viability that "the canoe and paddler" become integrated would be a major question to have resolved.
For the case where a car company engages in the regular practice of crushing not yet fully completed cars, if we don't recognize that as a huge avoidable waste, imagine how we would feel if their policy was that before the car was pulled off the line to be crushed, they'd have the customer who cancelled their order strap into the car and stay there for the crushing.
There might be some who are lacking in sympathy who might say that the owner should be held responsible for their decision. But then imagine that it is not them who is put in the car to be crushed, but rather someone else - someone who had absolutely no say in the decision to cancel the order knowing that the car would be crushed.
For those who believe that abortion, or certain abortions, snuff out a human soul or consciousness, then the act has far more impact than the mere materialist version of the issue that I had presented in the previous post.
=Dustin
yar...@aol.com
Nov 14, 2012, 8:42:23 AM11/14/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims. It is no doubt that many here have latched on to that fact and I can understand the impulse to do that if you are on the opposing side of the issue. That being said, it does not mean that there are no good arguments that conservatives could use in place of the bad ones. I have listened recently to a clip about a African rape victim asking how she could learn to love her daughter, who was born as the result of rape, more. It seems that the constant reminder that her daughter causes her of that act of violence against her is making it difficult for her to love her daughter. I can understand this kind of emotional reaction to the memory triggered by her daughter, but does that justify my reacting on a purely emotional level and say that an abortion should have been an option for her? Does it justify my refusing to visit the following questions. "Should the child have payed with her life because of the evil perpetrated by her father?" "Does a person have a right to take the life of someone simply because they remind them of a horrible event in their life?" "What is the unborn?" "Why subject a woman to the trauma of abortion on top of the trauma of the rape itself?"
> If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
I am not free to ignore these questions on the basis of an empathic emotional response to the injured party, though I am morally obligated to respond appropriately with sensitivity to their trauma. I realize that emotions can blind one's sense of reason, but when so much is riding on this, I don't think that I am free to ignore the complex issues surrounding abortion, rape, and the humanity of both mother and child. As a complete human being at a certain stage of development, both mother and child are entitled to the protections afforded all human beings as a basic human right. To deny any complete human being those basic human right, is to deny all human beings that right.
Message has been deleted
yar...@aol.com
Nov 14, 2012, 10:18:42 AM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:02:54 AM UTC-8, Robert Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:42:23 -0800 (PST), "yar...@aol.com"
> I am in complete agreement with your statement, All people have the basic
>
> right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.
You are certainly in agreement with something. :)
> The decision to carry a
>
> pregnancy to term regardless of how it begun is solely the woman's
>
> decision.
>
> If a fetus is granted the power to force a woman to carry it to term, then
>
> the fetus that results from a rape has just as much rights as a fetus from
>
> consensual sex.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:42:23 -0800 (PST), "yar...@aol.com"
>
> right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.
You are certainly in agreement with something. :)
> The decision to carry a
>
> pregnancy to term regardless of how it begun is solely the woman's
>
> decision.
>
> If a fetus is granted the power to force a woman to carry it to term, then
>
> the fetus that results from a rape has just as much rights as a fetus from
>
> consensual sex.
elizabeth
Nov 14, 2012, 4:47:33 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 12:50 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:18:21 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >From SilentOtto:
> > >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> > >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
> > emergency contraception.
>
> > So, again...
>
> > What now?
>
> I'm a big fan of knowledge and education. If substantial evidence is gained that EC works by preventing conception, then the only remaining hurdle is education.
snip
Then educate yourself, You have not done so yet.
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:18:21 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >From SilentOtto:
> > >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
> > >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
> > emergency contraception.
>
> > So, again...
>
> > What now?
>
> I'm a big fan of knowledge and education. If substantial evidence is gained that EC works by preventing conception, then the only remaining hurdle is education.
snip
elizabeth
Nov 14, 2012, 4:48:57 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
> > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
> > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
> First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
And that is why your long winded essays are completely without merit,
relevance, or morality.
yar...@aol.com
Nov 14, 2012, 6:11:26 PM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
> On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> >
>
> > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> >
>
> > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
>
>
> Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
>
>
> > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
>
>
> That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
Since I have never been murdered, do I have a right to say anything about murder? Should you be careful or careless in your reasoning?
> On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> >
>
> > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> >
>
> > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
>
>
> Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
>
>
> > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
>
>
> That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 15, 2012, 12:38:46 AM11/15/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:50:31 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:18:21 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
>> <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From SilentOtto:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
>> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
>> emergency contraception.
>>
>> So, again...
>>
>> What now?
>
>I'm a big fan of knowledge and education. If substantial evidence is gained that EC works by preventing conception, then the only remaining hurdle is education.
No.
Your remaining hurdle is overcoming their ideology.
You might be a big fan of knowledge and education, but it's not been
my experience that the far right are.
It seems to me that they tend to subordinate knowledge to ideology,
not the other way around.
As to the rest of your post, I've read it and it left me shaking my
head.
You completely ignored my main point, that people don't always act
rationally, and all the education in the world cannot make make them
do so.
Further, it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with
the wisdom of the very old, when if history tells us anything it's
that each generation must make and learn from it's own mistakes,
especially when it comes to matters of great uncertainty, like "Will I
get pregnant or not?".
You can teach the young all about your ideas on the sanctity of life
and how immediate action is preferable to taking action later.
I'm very skeptical that such education will stop a traumatized girl
who's just been raped from pushing the matter from her mind,
pretending that it didn't happen and hoping for the best.
><snip>
>> >> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
>> >> emergency contraception. �They'll likely be actively seeking it.
>> >> >I see that now. �Thanks for pointing it out. �Wow, I really thought
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:18:21 PM UTC-6, SilentOtto wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:04:46 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
>> <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From SilentOtto:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 02:30:57 -0800 (PST), Dustin Dewynne
>> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> But, if the cite I posted has any validity, they -aren't- accepting
>> emergency contraception.
>>
>> So, again...
>>
>> What now?
>
>I'm a big fan of knowledge and education. If substantial evidence is gained that EC works by preventing conception, then the only remaining hurdle is education.
Your remaining hurdle is overcoming their ideology.
You might be a big fan of knowledge and education, but it's not been
my experience that the far right are.
It seems to me that they tend to subordinate knowledge to ideology,
not the other way around.
As to the rest of your post, I've read it and it left me shaking my
head.
You completely ignored my main point, that people don't always act
rationally, and all the education in the world cannot make make them
do so.
Further, it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with
the wisdom of the very old, when if history tells us anything it's
that each generation must make and learn from it's own mistakes,
especially when it comes to matters of great uncertainty, like "Will I
get pregnant or not?".
You can teach the young all about your ideas on the sanctity of life
and how immediate action is preferable to taking action later.
I'm very skeptical that such education will stop a traumatized girl
who's just been raped from pushing the matter from her mind,
pretending that it didn't happen and hoping for the best.
><snip>
>> >> Few women who report rape immediately will need to be pressed to take
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 15, 2012, 3:57:34 AM11/15/12
to
From SilentOtto:
The standard way that government strives to shape behavior is codified threats and enticements. If "waiting to see if I get pregnant" is made illegal, then fear becomes a major motivator for that traumatized female, young or older, to follow the society-approved action of taking immediate preventative steps.
Again, that is not a solution I advocate.
...and I do agree that a rape victim is not inclined to act with her most rational mindset. She's just been raped. It is a traumatic event that needs to be healed, and that is a process that takes a lot of time. Imposing laws against her inaction would serve to add to the trauma.
What might be very effective is, instead of threats, for her to have a network of support and encouragement. While she is not expected to act most rationally, she can have a group of friends rallying around her to help her to take those immediate steps.
This would work very similarly to how the epidemic problem of drunk driving was solved. There was a huge education effort - a grass roots mobilization by people like that mother who started "MADD". The problem there was very similar to the problem you have highlighted here. A person at a party who has had too much to drink is not going to be making the most rational decisions.
Well these parents who had seen their children killed off by drunk drivers didn't just throw their hands up and say that the problem can't be solved. "We tried making alcohol illegal and that failed miserably." No, they came up with viable solutions. Yes, part of their solution involved punishment. But I don't see that as the most effective part. The big difference happened when education programs sprang up across society. And a key part of the education program was encouraging friends to help each other out.
Wind the clock back to the 1970's and ask anyone in that era to fill in the blank:
"FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS ____________"
What? They have no clue. Ask someone in the 1970's what a "Designated Driver" is. They have no idea. These solutions are memes that spread during the 1980's. And the current generation of youth has these solutions hard-wired into their brains. Over the course of a few decades, the problem of drunk driving went from being intractable to being totally obvious on various ways to completely avoid having a person who has had too much to drink from getting behind the wheel.
That's not to say that the problem is extinct. It is still an issue today. But the size of the problem is orders of magnitude smaller.
So imagine that a decade from now people will see the solution to abortion as being totally obvious: take necessary steps to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
"FRIENDS DON'T LET RAPED FRIENDS DO NOTHING THE MORNING AFTER."
How difficult is that? No laws needed. No threats. Yes, the female can be expected to be in a traumatized state. But friends can figure out that something is wrong, and as soon as they become aware of the situation, they will have been thoroughly educated that the most proper action is to insist on taking their friend to a clinic in order to verify what had happened and to take the proper steps that will prevent a conception/pregnancy from resulting.
As stated earlier in this thread, at the 2016 debates when candidates from either party is asked about their position on abortion in the case of rape, they can all answer that it is a problem that is totally preventable.
Ask anyone from the 2012 election what their position is on drunk driving. Oh wait, that question wasn't asked ...because that problem has been solved.
"Rape abortion, you ask? It's a totally preventable situation. We as a society have figured it out. Next question."
Above, you told me "it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with the wisdom of the very old". YES, that is *exactly* what I believe. There was a time when didn't know how to start fire to keep warm and cook food. Some wise elder, untold generations ago, figured it out and that wisdom got passed onto the very young where now the pendulum is swung so far over that parents today get worried that their young children *will start* a fire. The problem got turned 180-degrees around. And then someone invented child-proof caps to prevent the young'uns from accessing the matches at too young an age.
We are a very smart species. We have the necessary brain power to resolve the issue that is abortion.
=Dustin
Again, that is not a solution I advocate.
...and I do agree that a rape victim is not inclined to act with her most rational mindset. She's just been raped. It is a traumatic event that needs to be healed, and that is a process that takes a lot of time. Imposing laws against her inaction would serve to add to the trauma.
What might be very effective is, instead of threats, for her to have a network of support and encouragement. While she is not expected to act most rationally, she can have a group of friends rallying around her to help her to take those immediate steps.
This would work very similarly to how the epidemic problem of drunk driving was solved. There was a huge education effort - a grass roots mobilization by people like that mother who started "MADD". The problem there was very similar to the problem you have highlighted here. A person at a party who has had too much to drink is not going to be making the most rational decisions.
Well these parents who had seen their children killed off by drunk drivers didn't just throw their hands up and say that the problem can't be solved. "We tried making alcohol illegal and that failed miserably." No, they came up with viable solutions. Yes, part of their solution involved punishment. But I don't see that as the most effective part. The big difference happened when education programs sprang up across society. And a key part of the education program was encouraging friends to help each other out.
Wind the clock back to the 1970's and ask anyone in that era to fill in the blank:
"FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS ____________"
What? They have no clue. Ask someone in the 1970's what a "Designated Driver" is. They have no idea. These solutions are memes that spread during the 1980's. And the current generation of youth has these solutions hard-wired into their brains. Over the course of a few decades, the problem of drunk driving went from being intractable to being totally obvious on various ways to completely avoid having a person who has had too much to drink from getting behind the wheel.
That's not to say that the problem is extinct. It is still an issue today. But the size of the problem is orders of magnitude smaller.
So imagine that a decade from now people will see the solution to abortion as being totally obvious: take necessary steps to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
"FRIENDS DON'T LET RAPED FRIENDS DO NOTHING THE MORNING AFTER."
How difficult is that? No laws needed. No threats. Yes, the female can be expected to be in a traumatized state. But friends can figure out that something is wrong, and as soon as they become aware of the situation, they will have been thoroughly educated that the most proper action is to insist on taking their friend to a clinic in order to verify what had happened and to take the proper steps that will prevent a conception/pregnancy from resulting.
As stated earlier in this thread, at the 2016 debates when candidates from either party is asked about their position on abortion in the case of rape, they can all answer that it is a problem that is totally preventable.
Ask anyone from the 2012 election what their position is on drunk driving. Oh wait, that question wasn't asked ...because that problem has been solved.
"Rape abortion, you ask? It's a totally preventable situation. We as a society have figured it out. Next question."
Above, you told me "it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with the wisdom of the very old". YES, that is *exactly* what I believe. There was a time when didn't know how to start fire to keep warm and cook food. Some wise elder, untold generations ago, figured it out and that wisdom got passed onto the very young where now the pendulum is swung so far over that parents today get worried that their young children *will start* a fire. The problem got turned 180-degrees around. And then someone invented child-proof caps to prevent the young'uns from accessing the matches at too young an age.
We are a very smart species. We have the necessary brain power to resolve the issue that is abortion.
=Dustin
Message has been deleted
elizabeth
Nov 15, 2012, 2:47:30 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 3:11 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
> > Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
> > > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
> > That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> > all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
You really need to get assraped until you puke come.
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
> > Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
> > > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
> > That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> > all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
> Since I have never been murdered, do I have a right to say anything about murder? Should you be careful or careless in your reasoning?- Hide quoted text -
Abortion is in no way comparable to murder. Even when it was
unlawful, it was not murder. Pregnancy is quite harmful to women, and
forcing gestation, in a world so overpopulated already, is proof that
if you're not insane, you hate women more than anything else, and that
means YOUR MOTHER SHOULD HAVE ABORTED.
We *can* make it retroactive, pal.
elizabeth
Nov 15, 2012, 2:52:05 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 12:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> From SilentOtto:
snip
> > Further, it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with
> > the wisdom of the very old, when if history tells us anything it's
> > that each generation must make and learn from it's own mistakes,
> > especially when it comes to matters of great uncertainty, like "Will I
> > get pregnant or not?".
>
> > You can teach the young all about your ideas on the sanctity of life
> > and how immediate action is preferable to taking action later.
>
> > I'm very skeptical that such education will stop a traumatized girl
> > who's just been raped from pushing the matter from her mind,
> > pretending that it didn't happen and hoping for the best.
>
> The standard way that government strives to shape behavior is codified threats and enticements. If "waiting to see if I get pregnant" is made illegal, then fear becomes a major motivator for that traumatized female, young or older, to follow the society-approved action of taking immediate preventative steps.
You are not "the government" and it's clear that the goals of
politicians and corporation often involve coercion and manipulation to
enhance their power and wealth.
But why bother learning history? It just keeps repeating itself.
> Again, that is not a solution I advocate.
Who cares? You're just some moron with delusions of adequacy spewing
your opinion about what women should do and since you are not a woman,
your opinions just don't matter. Listen, pal, we've been hearing the
same blather from the antiabortniks since long before you were born,
and repeating bollocks doesn't improve the odor.
> ...and I do agree that a rape victim is not inclined to act with her most rational mindset. She's just been raped. It is a traumatic event that needs to be healed, and that is a process that takes a lot of time. Imposing laws against her inaction would serve to add to the trauma.
Since you are not a female, what you think rape victims feel is just
your own imagination at work, and has nothing to do with any woman.
Reactions to rape vary.
Dustbin, you're a fucking moron, proof that the American educational
system has completely gone off the rails.
> From SilentOtto:
snip
> > You completely ignored my main point, that people don't always act
> > rationally, and all the education in the world cannot make make them
> > do so.
And he does it again . . ..
> > rationally, and all the education in the world cannot make make them
> > do so.
> > Further, it seems that you believe you can imbue the very young with
> > the wisdom of the very old, when if history tells us anything it's
> > that each generation must make and learn from it's own mistakes,
> > especially when it comes to matters of great uncertainty, like "Will I
> > get pregnant or not?".
>
> > You can teach the young all about your ideas on the sanctity of life
> > and how immediate action is preferable to taking action later.
>
> > I'm very skeptical that such education will stop a traumatized girl
> > who's just been raped from pushing the matter from her mind,
> > pretending that it didn't happen and hoping for the best.
>
> The standard way that government strives to shape behavior is codified threats and enticements. If "waiting to see if I get pregnant" is made illegal, then fear becomes a major motivator for that traumatized female, young or older, to follow the society-approved action of taking immediate preventative steps.
politicians and corporation often involve coercion and manipulation to
enhance their power and wealth.
But why bother learning history? It just keeps repeating itself.
> Again, that is not a solution I advocate.
your opinion about what women should do and since you are not a woman,
your opinions just don't matter. Listen, pal, we've been hearing the
same blather from the antiabortniks since long before you were born,
and repeating bollocks doesn't improve the odor.
> ...and I do agree that a rape victim is not inclined to act with her most rational mindset. She's just been raped. It is a traumatic event that needs to be healed, and that is a process that takes a lot of time. Imposing laws against her inaction would serve to add to the trauma.
your own imagination at work, and has nothing to do with any woman.
Reactions to rape vary.
Dustbin, you're a fucking moron, proof that the American educational
system has completely gone off the rails.
elizabeth
Nov 15, 2012, 2:52:38 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 10:17 am, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:26 -0800 (PST), "yarr...@aol.com"
> Are you and Dustin Dewhinner ever going to learn how to set your? Word
> wrap?
> When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
> declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
> valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
> can kill a woman.
> You want to say something against self defense?- Hide quoted text -
women feel and should do . ..
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:26 -0800 (PST), "yarr...@aol.com"
> wrap?
> When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
> declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
> valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
> can kill a woman.
> You want to say something against self defense?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, he can't even post properly, keeps spewing his opinions of what
> - Show quoted text -
women feel and should do . ..
yar...@aol.com
Nov 15, 2012, 7:09:49 PM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:45 AM UTC-8, Robert Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:26 -0800 (PST), "yar...@aol.com"
>
> When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
>
> declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
>
> valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
>
> can kill a woman.
So can a car driver. Does that mean we need to go back to the horse and buggy? Actually, since drivers kill both men and women, it would seem to be a more legitimate argument for horse and buggy revival than your assertion that you can defend abortion on the basis of it being "sometimes" deadly. I'm willing to bet you that more women in the United States get killed due to car accidents than due to problem pregnancies. So, my argument is much better. Time to think about Mending, not Breaking Amish.
Maybe you have some legitimate arguments in favor of abortion, but you must be holding them back for some reason. The ones you are presenting here aren't making that much sense as fatalities due to pregnancy are quite rare in the developed world. Of course, you would have a point in Taliban or Alkaida country, but you don't seem to be having a conversation about this with those groups.
>
> You want to say something against self defense?
Self defense against a defenseless creature is not self defense. Not that you would want a fair fight from the little one. Would you kill a defenseless little puppy? Well, the way you are sounding, it would be self defense. I suspect you wouldn't do something to a creature that you know is not a human being, in my example. Yet, you would do it to a complete human being and claim it is self defense? Sounds like maybe you should get screwed by a dog and get your litter that way. At least we know you wouldn't kill the pups.
You see, I get it. You have actually abandoned the human race with your position being what it is. Since in principle you have already joined the animals, why not go all the way? Might want to start by eating your own poop and your own vomit to start with. And maybe you can start hurling shit at people. Oh...I expect you will be hurling some at me right after you read this message. So, you've become one of them...not one of us. Just what has made you abandon humanity? That's my question.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:26 -0800 (PST), "yar...@aol.com"
>
> <yar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
>
> <yar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
>
> Are you and Dustin Dewhinner ever going to learn how to set your? Word
>
> wrap?
Looks fine on my end.
>
> wrap?
>
> When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
>
> declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
>
> valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
>
> can kill a woman.
Maybe you have some legitimate arguments in favor of abortion, but you must be holding them back for some reason. The ones you are presenting here aren't making that much sense as fatalities due to pregnancy are quite rare in the developed world. Of course, you would have a point in Taliban or Alkaida country, but you don't seem to be having a conversation about this with those groups.
>
> You want to say something against self defense?
You see, I get it. You have actually abandoned the human race with your position being what it is. Since in principle you have already joined the animals, why not go all the way? Might want to start by eating your own poop and your own vomit to start with. And maybe you can start hurling shit at people. Oh...I expect you will be hurling some at me right after you read this message. So, you've become one of them...not one of us. Just what has made you abandon humanity? That's my question.
yar...@aol.com
Nov 15, 2012, 7:15:03 PM11/15/12
to
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 15, 2012, 9:33:53 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:57:34 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
First, your comment that the problem of drunk driving has been solved
is very wide of the mark.
Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
been the success you imagine it to be.
Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
raped?
As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
where the wisdom comes in.
Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
That's not so easily taught.
People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
proposing.
Have at it.
Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
wrote:
is very wide of the mark.
Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
been the success you imagine it to be.
Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
raped?
As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
where the wisdom comes in.
Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
That's not so easily taught.
People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
proposing.
Have at it.
Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 1:20:59 AM11/16/12
to
From SilentOtto:
<snip>
I am open to the notion that my understanding is not accurate. But I'd need to see harder evidence before I am persuaded toward the position you're voicing.
The point remains that there are ways to effectively solve certain problems that may seem at the time intractable, even if we were to agree that drunk driving has not been dramatically reduced. A different example...
Formula 1 racing is returning to the US this weekend. There's a brand new documentary on the sport that shows how atrocious the carnage was. The predominant belief was that drivers getting killed was just part of the sport. Well some key people refused to buy into that mindset. People like Jackie Stewart took a stand. Eventually there was a critical mass of people who rallied behind the belief that the sport could be made safe.
Look at the situation in 2012... The last F1 driver fatality was Senna in '94. That's a turn around from the situation where they were drivers were regularly getting killed each season. I was told that there was a four month period where a driver was killed each month. Well that problem is solved. Here are the hard stats on that one:
http://www.lolwtf.com.au/F1/f1_fatality_graph_2.png
I was actually with Jackie Stewart tonight. He was a significant leader in that turn-around in safety.
Well there are prominent leaders today in getting this abortion issue solved. Eventually it will reach a critical mass, and the corner will be turned.
The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious to them that it is second nature.
...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear protection on their heads were mocked.
And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask? Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away from the wreckage if they crashed.
What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want* to get pregnant? I don't understand."
> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
>
> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
>
> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
> raped?
I expect that with close friends it is easy to detect. But yes, I could be totally mistaken here. So if a woman has the ability to keep her psychological trauma totally masked, then it would seem that the women who are strong enough to pull this off would also be the ones who are strong enough to make rational decisions on what steps they need to take in order to prevent getting pregnant.
> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
>
> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
>
> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
> where the wisdom comes in.
>
> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
>
> That's not so easily taught.
The fundamental point I am repeating here is that the student of human history will clearly see a pattern of how problems are seen to be unsolvable, and then there becomes a radical turn around to where the issue is so solved that people can barely relate to that previous era.
> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
>
> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
> proposing.
>
> Have at it.
>
> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
That could be a transitional step from our current situation. And if people learn that this "addition" is totally effective, then anyone wanting a substitute will see that need completely fall away.
=Dustin
<snip>
> First, your comment that the problem of drunk driving has been solved
> is very wide of the mark.
>
> Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
> car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
> been the success you imagine it to be.
Maybe my impressions are mistaken. I had the understanding that it had "epidemic" proportions, and that today it is no longer "epidemic", so I was calling that problem "solved". I do agree with the point that there are still alcohol related crashes. Maybe someone would like to interject with some stats to help quantify how the situation has changed from the 1970s to the 2010s.
> is very wide of the mark.
>
> Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
> car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
> been the success you imagine it to be.
I am open to the notion that my understanding is not accurate. But I'd need to see harder evidence before I am persuaded toward the position you're voicing.
The point remains that there are ways to effectively solve certain problems that may seem at the time intractable, even if we were to agree that drunk driving has not been dramatically reduced. A different example...
Formula 1 racing is returning to the US this weekend. There's a brand new documentary on the sport that shows how atrocious the carnage was. The predominant belief was that drivers getting killed was just part of the sport. Well some key people refused to buy into that mindset. People like Jackie Stewart took a stand. Eventually there was a critical mass of people who rallied behind the belief that the sport could be made safe.
Look at the situation in 2012... The last F1 driver fatality was Senna in '94. That's a turn around from the situation where they were drivers were regularly getting killed each season. I was told that there was a four month period where a driver was killed each month. Well that problem is solved. Here are the hard stats on that one:
http://www.lolwtf.com.au/F1/f1_fatality_graph_2.png
I was actually with Jackie Stewart tonight. He was a significant leader in that turn-around in safety.
Well there are prominent leaders today in getting this abortion issue solved. Eventually it will reach a critical mass, and the corner will be turned.
The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious to them that it is second nature.
...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear protection on their heads were mocked.
And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask? Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away from the wreckage if they crashed.
What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want* to get pregnant? I don't understand."
> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
>
> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
>
> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
> raped?
> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
>
> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
>
> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
> where the wisdom comes in.
>
> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
>
> That's not so easily taught.
> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
>
> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
> proposing.
>
> Have at it.
>
> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Nov 16, 2012, 4:25:50 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 4:09 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:45 AM UTC-8, Robert Parker wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:26 -0800 (PST), "yarr...@aol.com"
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:45 AM UTC-8, Robert Parker wrote:
>
> > <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:48:57 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > >> On Nov 14, 5:42 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > >> > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > >> > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > >> > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
> > >> Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
> > >> > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
> > >> That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> > >> all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
>
> > >Since I have never been murdered, do I have a right to say anything about murder?
>
> > > Should you be careful or careless in your reasoning?
>
> > Are you and Dustin Dewhinner ever going to learn how to set your? Word
>
> > wrap?
>
> Looks fine on my end.
>
>
>
> > When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
>
> > declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
>
> > valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
Dustbin, to call you a sophist would be too flattering. your
>
> > >> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:26:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Garner wrote:
>
> > >> > > If some one asks you about your position on abortion after a rape say that
>
> > >> > > you are for it. Missouri and Indiana republican senate candidates both
>
> > >> > > lost because of their no abortion in case of rape positions.
>
> > >> Eat shit, and die in agony, Dustbin.
>
> > >> > First, let me say that there are a lot of bad arguments given by the conservatives in favor of their view that abortion should not be available to rape victims.
>
> > >> That's mighty white of you. Considering that you aren't a target of
>
> > >> all rapists, and you will never be pregnant.
>
> > >Since I have never been murdered, do I have a right to say anything about murder?
>
> > > Should you be careful or careless in your reasoning?
>
> > Are you and Dustin Dewhinner ever going to learn how to set your? Word
>
> > wrap?
>
> Looks fine on my end.
>
>
>
> > When you stupid ass hole Christian shit stains get a law passed that
>
> > declare abortions to be murder, then this stupid ass question will be
>
> > valid. Until then abortion can be seen as self defense because pregnancy
reasoning is completely inadequate, and using example that simply have
no relevance proves this.
> > can kill a woman.
>
> So can a car driver. Does that mean we need to go back to the horse and buggy? sd
snip
One can choose not to drive, but it's the case we do accept a lot of
preventable deaths for "convenience" using cars, so your example
actually proves that death for convenience's sake is the American way.
> Maybe you have some legitimate arguments in favor of abortion,
unwanted pregnancy. You are beyond oblivious to the harms that forced
gestation causes women, to the point of being a misogynist sociopath,
downplaying real harm done, as if the life, health, and safely of
women just don't matter.
And that is why you are a stupid, shit eating, cock lapping, mother
fucking waste of resources, Dustbin.
sni;
> > You want to say something against self defense?
>
> Self defense against a defenseless creature is not self defense.
The pregnancy DOES HARM THE WOMAN, to the extent that if I were to try
>
> Self defense against a defenseless creature is not self defense.
to do to YOU what a normal pregnancy does to a woman, I would be
guilty of multiple felonies.
Dustbin, your mother should have aborted, that is very, very clear.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Nov 17, 2012, 6:11:46 AM11/17/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:20:59 -0800 (PST), dustin....@gmail.com
wrote:
>From SilentOtto:
><snip>
>> First, your comment that the problem of drunk driving has been solved
>> is very wide of the mark.
>>
>> Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
>> car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
>> been the success you imagine it to be.
>
>Maybe my impressions are mistaken. I had the understanding that it had "epidemic" proportions, and that today it is no longer "epidemic", so I was calling that problem "solved". I do agree with the point that there are still alcohol related crashes. Maybe someone would like to interject with some stats to help quantify how the situation has changed from the 1970s to the 2010s.
>
>I am open to the notion that my understanding is not accurate. But I'd need to see harder evidence before I am persuaded toward the position you're voicing.
Alcohol related traffic deaths has fallen by about half since MADD was
formed and started lobbying for tougher drunk driving laws in 1980.
However, as with most statistics, the numbers can be misleading.
On the plus side for MADD, the population of the country has grown by
around a hundred million people since MADD was formed, which causes
MADD's success to be somewhat understated.
On the other hand, there was a demographic skew that made the problem
of drunk driving fatalities seem somewhat more pernicious than it
actually was when MADD was formed.
The peak of the baby boom in the U.S. was in 1961, which was when I
was born, and by 1979 we were turning eighteen. My graduating class
was almost five times the size of the graduating class of a decade
earlier. And, as the demographic bubble passed - remember the pill
became widely available in the early '60's- class sizes fell off
precipitously, leaving the graduating class of five years later around
a third the size of mine.
So, when MADD was founded, there was a huge bubble of young people who
were at the age where they were most likely to be involved in alcohol
related traffic fatalities, and that pushed the numbers of drunk
driving deaths up.
It's also worth noting the social factors that contributed to the
number of alcohol related traffic fatalities at the time.
The U.S., obviously, has a car culture, and that was a true then as it
is now. When I was eighteen, for one hour of work at minimum wage one
could buy about five gallons of gas. Compare that to now, where one
hour of work will allow the purchase of only around two gallons of
gas, and one can see the difference. So, we spent a great deal of
time in our cars cruising around.
Another factor was the availability of alcohol. In many states,
including where I live in Michigan, the drinking age had been lowered
to eighteen in the early seventies due to the Vietnam war. It was
seen as unfair that one could be drafted and sent off to war when they
couldn't legally buy a beer. That made it very easy for high school
students to get booze, as everyone knew someone who was eighteen and
would buy for them.
So, get booze we did.
The drinking age was raised back up to twenty-one in 1978, mostly for
that reason, to get alcohol out of the schools. But, it took some
time before store owners took the matter really seriously, and it
remained easy to buy alcohol for a few years after the drinking age
was raised.
Another factor was the availability of muscle cars from the late 60's
and early seventies. While such cars are seen as prize possessions
now days, back then they were just old, beat-up cars and one could buy
one cheap. My first car was a 1966 GTO, with a 389 4bl and 4 on the
floor. It was -mind blowingly- fast and very dangerous for a young,
inexperienced driver, especially one who's smashed out of their mind,
as I frequently was.
So, in the late seventies-early eighties there was something of a
perfect storm of booze, cars and little else to do besides get drunk
and drive around, and the alcohol related deaths at the time reflected
that.
While I personally dodged the bullet and never had an alcohol related
crash or got busted for drunk driving, in the four years I was in high
school, something like a dozen kids got killed alcohol related car
crashes.
It was statistics like that which lead to the creation of MADD in the
first place.
While I think it's clear that MADD has had some success, precisely
quantifying it is more difficult.
>The point remains that there are ways to effectively solve certain problems that may seem at the time intractable, even if we were to agree that drunk driving has not been dramatically reduced. A different example...
>
>Formula 1 racing is returning to the US this weekend. There's a brand new documentary on the sport that shows how atrocious the carnage was. The predominant belief was that drivers getting killed was just part of the sport. Well some key people refused to buy into that mindset. People like Jackie Stewart took a stand. Eventually there was a critical mass of people who rallied behind the belief that the sport could be made safe.
>
>Look at the situation in 2012... The last F1 driver fatality was Senna in '94. That's a turn around from the situation where they were drivers were regularly getting killed each season. I was told that there was a four month period where a driver was killed each month. Well that problem is solved. Here are the hard stats on that one:
>http://www.lolwtf.com.au/F1/f1_fatality_graph_2.png
>
>I was actually with Jackie Stewart tonight. He was a significant leader in that turn-around in safety.
>
>Well there are prominent leaders today in getting this abortion issue solved. Eventually it will reach a critical mass, and the corner will be turned.
Fixing F1 race cars was a matter for engineering.
Fixing problems like the abortion issue is -far- more complex.
There was no group involved in F1 racing that had an ideological
opposition to making cars safer. Some may have thought that it was
unnecessary, but nobody thought making a car safer was evil.
That's not the case when it comes to abortion or even EC.
Most of the prominent leaders who want to solve the abortion issue
want to solve it simply by making abortion illegal, which really isn't
a solution at all.
As I've said before, the choice isn't really between abortion and no
abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
oppose education and making EC easily available.
>The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious to them that it is second nature.
>
>...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear protection on their heads were mocked.
>
>And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask? Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away from the wreckage if they crashed.
>
>What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
Who exactly has a cavalier attitude toward abortion?
That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
serious matter.
>"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want* to get pregnant? I don't understand."
"You have to understand, grand-daughter, that abortion is very wrong
and taking the morning after pill is just another form of abortion. If
you take a morning after pill, you will surely burn in hell for ever
and ever. Both the Pope and nine out of ten Baptist ministers agree
that the morning after pill is pure evil and was put on earth by Satan
to lead good people astray from the Lord. If you ever take one, I'll
disown you and cast you from the family!"
>> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
>> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
>>
>> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
>>
>> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
>> raped?
>
>I expect that with close friends it is easy to detect.
I expect that it isn't.
>But yes, I could be totally mistaken here. So if a woman has the ability to keep her psychological trauma totally masked, then it would seem that the women who are strong enough to pull this off would also be the ones who are strong enough to make rational decisions on what steps they need to take in order to prevent getting pregnant.
More likely they're the one's who lock themselves in their room and
tell everyone that they're not feeling well and to come back another
time.
>> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
>>
>> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
>>
>> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
>> where the wisdom comes in.
>>
>> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
>>
>> That's not so easily taught.
>
>The fundamental point I am repeating here is that the student of human history will clearly see a pattern of how problems are seen to be unsolvable, and then there becomes a radical turn around to where the issue is so solved that people can barely relate to that previous era.
And, as a student of history, I would have expected you to have
noticed that some problems, especially those that deal with the human
condition, are eternal and have -never- been solved in any way that's
compatible with human freedom.
Three-thousand years ago, children were being disrespectful to their
elders.
They still are.
There are some things that each generation has to learn for
themselves, and that's just the way it is.
It's the nature of the beast.
>> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
>> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
>>
>> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
>> proposing.
>>
>> Have at it.
>>
>> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
>> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
>
>That could be a transitional step from our current situation. And if people learn that this "addition" is totally effective, then anyone wanting a substitute will see that need completely fall away.
Once again, it's not me you have to persuade of the merits of
education.
It's those with an ideological opposition to sex outside of their
religious framework who are opposing you.
wrote:
>From SilentOtto:
><snip>
>> First, your comment that the problem of drunk driving has been solved
>> is very wide of the mark.
>>
>> Alcohol still figures prominently in all manor of mishaps, including
>> car accidents, so the public campaign against drunk driving hasn't
>> been the success you imagine it to be.
>
>Maybe my impressions are mistaken. I had the understanding that it had "epidemic" proportions, and that today it is no longer "epidemic", so I was calling that problem "solved". I do agree with the point that there are still alcohol related crashes. Maybe someone would like to interject with some stats to help quantify how the situation has changed from the 1970s to the 2010s.
>
>I am open to the notion that my understanding is not accurate. But I'd need to see harder evidence before I am persuaded toward the position you're voicing.
formed and started lobbying for tougher drunk driving laws in 1980.
However, as with most statistics, the numbers can be misleading.
On the plus side for MADD, the population of the country has grown by
around a hundred million people since MADD was formed, which causes
MADD's success to be somewhat understated.
On the other hand, there was a demographic skew that made the problem
of drunk driving fatalities seem somewhat more pernicious than it
actually was when MADD was formed.
The peak of the baby boom in the U.S. was in 1961, which was when I
was born, and by 1979 we were turning eighteen. My graduating class
was almost five times the size of the graduating class of a decade
earlier. And, as the demographic bubble passed - remember the pill
became widely available in the early '60's- class sizes fell off
precipitously, leaving the graduating class of five years later around
a third the size of mine.
So, when MADD was founded, there was a huge bubble of young people who
were at the age where they were most likely to be involved in alcohol
related traffic fatalities, and that pushed the numbers of drunk
driving deaths up.
It's also worth noting the social factors that contributed to the
number of alcohol related traffic fatalities at the time.
The U.S., obviously, has a car culture, and that was a true then as it
is now. When I was eighteen, for one hour of work at minimum wage one
could buy about five gallons of gas. Compare that to now, where one
hour of work will allow the purchase of only around two gallons of
gas, and one can see the difference. So, we spent a great deal of
time in our cars cruising around.
Another factor was the availability of alcohol. In many states,
including where I live in Michigan, the drinking age had been lowered
to eighteen in the early seventies due to the Vietnam war. It was
seen as unfair that one could be drafted and sent off to war when they
couldn't legally buy a beer. That made it very easy for high school
students to get booze, as everyone knew someone who was eighteen and
would buy for them.
So, get booze we did.
The drinking age was raised back up to twenty-one in 1978, mostly for
that reason, to get alcohol out of the schools. But, it took some
time before store owners took the matter really seriously, and it
remained easy to buy alcohol for a few years after the drinking age
was raised.
Another factor was the availability of muscle cars from the late 60's
and early seventies. While such cars are seen as prize possessions
now days, back then they were just old, beat-up cars and one could buy
one cheap. My first car was a 1966 GTO, with a 389 4bl and 4 on the
floor. It was -mind blowingly- fast and very dangerous for a young,
inexperienced driver, especially one who's smashed out of their mind,
as I frequently was.
So, in the late seventies-early eighties there was something of a
perfect storm of booze, cars and little else to do besides get drunk
and drive around, and the alcohol related deaths at the time reflected
that.
While I personally dodged the bullet and never had an alcohol related
crash or got busted for drunk driving, in the four years I was in high
school, something like a dozen kids got killed alcohol related car
crashes.
It was statistics like that which lead to the creation of MADD in the
first place.
While I think it's clear that MADD has had some success, precisely
quantifying it is more difficult.
>The point remains that there are ways to effectively solve certain problems that may seem at the time intractable, even if we were to agree that drunk driving has not been dramatically reduced. A different example...
>
>Formula 1 racing is returning to the US this weekend. There's a brand new documentary on the sport that shows how atrocious the carnage was. The predominant belief was that drivers getting killed was just part of the sport. Well some key people refused to buy into that mindset. People like Jackie Stewart took a stand. Eventually there was a critical mass of people who rallied behind the belief that the sport could be made safe.
>
>Look at the situation in 2012... The last F1 driver fatality was Senna in '94. That's a turn around from the situation where they were drivers were regularly getting killed each season. I was told that there was a four month period where a driver was killed each month. Well that problem is solved. Here are the hard stats on that one:
>http://www.lolwtf.com.au/F1/f1_fatality_graph_2.png
>
>I was actually with Jackie Stewart tonight. He was a significant leader in that turn-around in safety.
>
>Well there are prominent leaders today in getting this abortion issue solved. Eventually it will reach a critical mass, and the corner will be turned.
Fixing problems like the abortion issue is -far- more complex.
There was no group involved in F1 racing that had an ideological
opposition to making cars safer. Some may have thought that it was
unnecessary, but nobody thought making a car safer was evil.
That's not the case when it comes to abortion or even EC.
Most of the prominent leaders who want to solve the abortion issue
want to solve it simply by making abortion illegal, which really isn't
a solution at all.
As I've said before, the choice isn't really between abortion and no
abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
oppose education and making EC easily available.
>The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious to them that it is second nature.
>
>...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear protection on their heads were mocked.
>
>And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask? Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away from the wreckage if they crashed.
>
>What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
serious matter.
>"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want* to get pregnant? I don't understand."
and taking the morning after pill is just another form of abortion. If
you take a morning after pill, you will surely burn in hell for ever
and ever. Both the Pope and nine out of ten Baptist ministers agree
that the morning after pill is pure evil and was put on earth by Satan
to lead good people astray from the Lord. If you ever take one, I'll
disown you and cast you from the family!"
>> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
>> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
>>
>> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
>>
>> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
>> raped?
>
>I expect that with close friends it is easy to detect.
>But yes, I could be totally mistaken here. So if a woman has the ability to keep her psychological trauma totally masked, then it would seem that the women who are strong enough to pull this off would also be the ones who are strong enough to make rational decisions on what steps they need to take in order to prevent getting pregnant.
tell everyone that they're not feeling well and to come back another
time.
>> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
>>
>> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
>>
>> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
>> where the wisdom comes in.
>>
>> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
>>
>> That's not so easily taught.
>
>The fundamental point I am repeating here is that the student of human history will clearly see a pattern of how problems are seen to be unsolvable, and then there becomes a radical turn around to where the issue is so solved that people can barely relate to that previous era.
noticed that some problems, especially those that deal with the human
condition, are eternal and have -never- been solved in any way that's
compatible with human freedom.
Three-thousand years ago, children were being disrespectful to their
elders.
They still are.
There are some things that each generation has to learn for
themselves, and that's just the way it is.
It's the nature of the beast.
>> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
>> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
>>
>> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
>> proposing.
>>
>> Have at it.
>>
>> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
>> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
>
>That could be a transitional step from our current situation. And if people learn that this "addition" is totally effective, then anyone wanting a substitute will see that need completely fall away.
education.
It's those with an ideological opposition to sex outside of their
religious framework who are opposing you.
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 21, 2012, 6:57:11 AM11/21/12
to
From SilentOtto:
Thanks for all of that excellent info. If what you are saying is accurate, then my impression that the epidemic of drunk driving is far from "solved", and I stand corrected. I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
I agree with your points above.
> As I've said before, the choice isn't really between abortion and no
> abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
>
> And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
> oppose education and making EC easily available.
>
> >The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and
> >day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of
> >drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were
> >back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious
> >to them that it is second nature.
> >
> >...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the
> >game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear
> >protection on their heads were mocked.
> >
> >And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys
> >deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask?
> >Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away
> >from the wreckage if they crashed.
> >
> >What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked
> >back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or
> >driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
>
> Who exactly has a cavalier attitude toward abortion?
>
> That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
> serious matter.
There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A for birth control. The parallel here might be having a cavalier attitude toward Russian Roulette, simply because you are pointing the gun at someone else's head instead of your own.
(Substitute "someone" with "something" above for those who don't recognize the life being killed as an individual.)
> >"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take
> >a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want*
> >to get pregnant? I don't understand."
>
> "You have to understand, grand-daughter, that abortion is very wrong
> and taking the morning after pill is just another form of abortion. If
> you take a morning after pill, you will surely burn in hell for ever
> and ever. Both the Pope and nine out of ten Baptist ministers agree
> that the morning after pill is pure evil and was put on earth by Satan
> to lead good people astray from the Lord. If you ever take one, I'll
> disown you and cast you from the family!"
(We're both clear on where that position stands.)
> >> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
> >> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
> >>
> >> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
> >>
> >> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
> >> raped?
> >
> >I expect that with close friends it is easy to detect.
>
> I expect that it isn't.
I have absolutely no experience on the matter. Once again I find myself in the Colbert Zone on this.
> >But yes, I could be totally mistaken here. So if a woman has the ability
> >to keep her psychological trauma totally masked, then it would seem that
> >the women who are strong enough to pull this off would also be the ones
> >who are strong enough to make rational decisions on what steps they need
> >to take in order to prevent getting pregnant.
>
> More likely they're the one's who lock themselves in their room and
> tell everyone that they're not feeling well and to come back another
> time.
Perhaps. And going back to the drunk driving comparison, there are those who are fully aware that alcohol and operating a car are a potentially lethal combination. Even when they choose to turn the key. So for those people, the education hurdle is behind them. What is lacking is the motivation to do what they could otherwise see as a clear choice.
Advertisers of, say, Coke & Pepsi, know how easy it is to motivate people to make certain specific choices even when the rational choice (based on price/value/etc) would be totally different. This is to say that our state of understanding human psychology has progressed to the point where we can also solve the motivation element in making smart choices on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
I do *not* advocate an "awareness" campaign that is based on fear like the current crop of anti-tobacco propaganda. I expect that the motivation can be addressed in a much more positive and uplifting way.
> >> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
> >>
> >> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
> >>
> >> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
> >> where the wisdom comes in.
> >>
> >> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
> >>
> >> That's not so easily taught.
> >
> >The fundamental point I am repeating here is that the student of human
> >history will clearly see a pattern of how problems are seen to be
> >unsolvable, and then there becomes a radical turn around to where the
> >issue is so solved that people can barely relate to that previous era.
>
> And, as a student of history, I would have expected you to have
> noticed that some problems, especially those that deal with the human
> condition, are eternal and have -never- been solved in any way that's
> compatible with human freedom.
>
> Three-thousand years ago, children were being disrespectful to their
> elders.
>
> They still are.
There has been a huge change since just the last half century in the level of respect that is given to children by their parents. Whipping kids asses with a belt has been replaced by time-outs. The next generation of parents might evolve to the point of seeing how all punishments, as well as rewards, are oppressive and they may have the skills on how to use alternative methods that enforce natural consequences.
My own experience is that as a kid I was beaten. I saw my siblings beaten. Yet for my children I never used physical punishment a single time, nor did I ever threaten them with anything ever. There are times when my behavior toward them was lacking in respect, but overall it was a huge turnaround in the span of just one generation.
I see it to be possible that we can have a stark turnaround in abortion over the span of just one generation as well. And more significantly, there could very well be a CAUSAL connection between the level of respect that children get from their parents to the attitudes they develop toward abortion. It is the attitude that those with power have over those who are lacking in power:
"I wasn't treated with much respect, so I don't see why I should treat this new life I got started with much respect either."
It is quite possible that the fundamental cure for the abortion issue is to raise the children we do bring into the world with dignity and respect.
(Some excellent parenting teachers are Barbara Coloroso and Aletha Solter. That's from the last generation. I expect that there are lots more available today.)
> There are some things that each generation has to learn for
> themselves, and that's just the way it is.
>
> It's the nature of the beast.
I agree to an extent. But I also see a steady march of progress. For many thousands of years, human evolution was governed by genes. But that shifted to an evolution that is governed by memes. We learn from the behaviors of the previous generations. How to make fire is a meme. How to avoid unwanted pregnancy is another meme.
Memetics enables us to avoid the painful process of learning *everything* for ourselves. We can learn, instead, from the mistakes of those who came before us. Literally, in both senses of that word.
> >> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
> >> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
> >>
> >> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
> >> proposing.
> >>
> >> Have at it.
> >>
> >> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
> >> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
> >
> >That could be a transitional step from our current situation. And if
> >people learn that this "addition" is totally effective, then anyone
> >wanting a substitute will see that need completely fall away.
>
> Once again, it's not me you have to persuade of the merits of
> education.
>
> It's those with an ideological opposition to sex outside of their
> religious framework who are opposing you.
Perhaps the essential hurdle in this issue is this attitude that everyone can be susceptible to:
"My solution is best and I have nothing to learn from anyone else's position on this matter."
It is quite possible that the essence of the intractability of the abortion issue is our own ego. If instead we could somehow "lower our shields" for a brief moment and get in touch with our "True Selves" (as someone like Andrew Cohen might say) then perhaps we would be able to make significant steps toward a permanent solution that all sides can recognize the wisdom in.
=Dustin
> As I've said before, the choice isn't really between abortion and no
> abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
>
> And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
> oppose education and making EC easily available.
>
> >The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and
> >day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of
> >drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were
> >back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious
> >to them that it is second nature.
> >
> >...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the
> >game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear
> >protection on their heads were mocked.
> >
> >And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys
> >deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask?
> >Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away
> >from the wreckage if they crashed.
> >
> >What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked
> >back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or
> >driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
>
> Who exactly has a cavalier attitude toward abortion?
>
> That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
> serious matter.
(Substitute "someone" with "something" above for those who don't recognize the life being killed as an individual.)
> >"What do you mean, grandma, that raped women back in your day didn't take
> >a morning after pill? Why on earth wouldn't they? Did they actually *want*
> >to get pregnant? I don't understand."
>
> "You have to understand, grand-daughter, that abortion is very wrong
> and taking the morning after pill is just another form of abortion. If
> you take a morning after pill, you will surely burn in hell for ever
> and ever. Both the Pope and nine out of ten Baptist ministers agree
> that the morning after pill is pure evil and was put on earth by Satan
> to lead good people astray from the Lord. If you ever take one, I'll
> disown you and cast you from the family!"
> >> Further, a person who's who's intoxicated at a party or in a bar is
> >> frequently obvious, making it easy for those around them to intervene.
> >>
> >> How does one spot a rape victim, exactly?
> >>
> >> Especially when the rape victim doesn't wish anyone to know she's been
> >> raped?
> >
> >I expect that with close friends it is easy to detect.
>
> I expect that it isn't.
> >But yes, I could be totally mistaken here. So if a woman has the ability
> >to keep her psychological trauma totally masked, then it would seem that
> >the women who are strong enough to pull this off would also be the ones
> >who are strong enough to make rational decisions on what steps they need
> >to take in order to prevent getting pregnant.
>
> More likely they're the one's who lock themselves in their room and
> tell everyone that they're not feeling well and to come back another
> time.
Advertisers of, say, Coke & Pepsi, know how easy it is to motivate people to make certain specific choices even when the rational choice (based on price/value/etc) would be totally different. This is to say that our state of understanding human psychology has progressed to the point where we can also solve the motivation element in making smart choices on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
I do *not* advocate an "awareness" campaign that is based on fear like the current crop of anti-tobacco propaganda. I expect that the motivation can be addressed in a much more positive and uplifting way.
> >> As to "starting a fire", you're confusing knowledge and wisdom.
> >>
> >> Knowing how to start a fire is knowledge.
> >>
> >> Knowing when, or perhaps more importantly, when not to start a fire is
> >> where the wisdom comes in.
> >>
> >> Especially when there is a competing interest, such as one being cold.
> >>
> >> That's not so easily taught.
> >
> >The fundamental point I am repeating here is that the student of human
> >history will clearly see a pattern of how problems are seen to be
> >unsolvable, and then there becomes a radical turn around to where the
> >issue is so solved that people can barely relate to that previous era.
>
> And, as a student of history, I would have expected you to have
> noticed that some problems, especially those that deal with the human
> condition, are eternal and have -never- been solved in any way that's
> compatible with human freedom.
>
> Three-thousand years ago, children were being disrespectful to their
> elders.
>
> They still are.
My own experience is that as a kid I was beaten. I saw my siblings beaten. Yet for my children I never used physical punishment a single time, nor did I ever threaten them with anything ever. There are times when my behavior toward them was lacking in respect, but overall it was a huge turnaround in the span of just one generation.
I see it to be possible that we can have a stark turnaround in abortion over the span of just one generation as well. And more significantly, there could very well be a CAUSAL connection between the level of respect that children get from their parents to the attitudes they develop toward abortion. It is the attitude that those with power have over those who are lacking in power:
"I wasn't treated with much respect, so I don't see why I should treat this new life I got started with much respect either."
It is quite possible that the fundamental cure for the abortion issue is to raise the children we do bring into the world with dignity and respect.
(Some excellent parenting teachers are Barbara Coloroso and Aletha Solter. That's from the last generation. I expect that there are lots more available today.)
> There are some things that each generation has to learn for
> themselves, and that's just the way it is.
>
> It's the nature of the beast.
Memetics enables us to avoid the painful process of learning *everything* for ourselves. We can learn, instead, from the mistakes of those who came before us. Literally, in both senses of that word.
> >> People are smart, but we're also risk takers, and it takes experience
> >> to recognize when a risk is manageable and when it's not.
> >>
> >> But, as I've said before, I've no basic objection to what you're
> >> proposing.
> >>
> >> Have at it.
> >>
> >> Just know that I'll support such efforts as an addition to our current
> >> stance on abortion, but not as a substitute.
> >
> >That could be a transitional step from our current situation. And if
> >people learn that this "addition" is totally effective, then anyone
> >wanting a substitute will see that need completely fall away.
>
> Once again, it's not me you have to persuade of the merits of
> education.
>
> It's those with an ideological opposition to sex outside of their
> religious framework who are opposing you.
"My solution is best and I have nothing to learn from anyone else's position on this matter."
It is quite possible that the essence of the intractability of the abortion issue is our own ego. If instead we could somehow "lower our shields" for a brief moment and get in touch with our "True Selves" (as someone like Andrew Cohen might say) then perhaps we would be able to make significant steps toward a permanent solution that all sides can recognize the wisdom in.
=Dustin
yar...@aol.com
Nov 21, 2012, 10:18:05 AM11/21/12
to
elizabeth
Nov 21, 2012, 3:42:45 PM11/21/12
to
> I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
sni[p
> > As I've said before, the choice isn't really between abortion and no
> > abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
>
> > And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
> > oppose education and making EC easily available.
>
> > >The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and
> > >day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of
> > >drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were
> > >back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious
> > >to them that it is second nature.
>
> > >...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the
> > >game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear
> > >protection on their heads were mocked.
>
> > >And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys
> > >deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask?
> > >Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away
> > >from the wreckage if they crashed.
>
> > >What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked
> > >back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or
> > >driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
>
> > Who exactly has a cavalier attitude toward abortion?
>
> > That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
> > serious matter.
>
> There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A for birth control.
Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> > abortion. It's a choice between safe abortion and unsafe abortion.
>
> > And, as I've noted over and over, it's those same people who also
> > oppose education and making EC easily available.
>
> > >The F1 safety scene from the 50's, 60's & 70's is like night and
> > >day compared to today. I expect that this current generation of
> > >drivers can't even relate to why things were the way they were
> > >back then. The standard that is maintained today seems so obvious
> > >to them that it is second nature.
>
> > >...kinda like how NFL players today can't relate to the day when the
> > >game was played without helmets. Those players who wanted to wear
> > >protection on their heads were mocked.
>
> > >And look at the F1 drivers' attitudes from the 1960's. These guys
> > >deliberately drove WITHOUT wearing seat belts. Why, we might ask?
> > >Because they believed it was safer to have their bodies thrown away
> > >from the wreckage if they crashed.
>
> > >What we have today's cavalier attitudes toward abortion will be looked
> > >back upon just like we look back upon the playing-without-a-helmet or
> > >driving-without-a-seatbelt attitudes.
>
> > Who exactly has a cavalier attitude toward abortion?
>
> > That people want it legal doesn't mean that they don't consider it a
> > serious matter.
>
> There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A for birth control.
people to gestate is a good idea.
Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
people there are.
> The parallel here might be having a cavalier attitude toward Russian Roulette, simply because you are pointing the gun at someone else's head instead of your own.
sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
> (Substitute "someone" with "something" above for those who don't recognize the life being killed as an individual.)
to refuse sex?
elizabeth
Nov 21, 2012, 3:46:16 PM11/21/12
to
jurisdictions, you can use force to prevent damage or theft to
property.
> I agree that a woman has the right to an abortion if her life is in peril.
real threat to life and health of women.
> Even if you were to commit multiple felonies against me, that does not necessarily give me the right to kill you
>...unless of course, my life is in danger.
than able to use deadly force: "your honor I was in fear for my life"
is all it takes, and in the real world, someone committing multiple
felonies is not going to deal with reason!
> Then, and only then, do I have the right to take your life. I am applying the same criteria across the board and am not making any kind of special exceptions because I don't see any reason to.
Reasonable fear for life or safety, but you may have to prove it to
the judge . ..and the DA may or may not charge you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dustbin, your mother should have aborted, that is very, very clear.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2012, 10:21:46 PM11/23/12
to
From elizabeth:
<snip>
If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating, then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
When I say that people use abortion as Plan A, I do not mean that anyone is out there trying to get pregnant just to get an abortion. What I mean is that they are not taking necessary measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion becomes their -default- option. Their "plan" is not having a plan to prevent that course of consequences.
As for examples, the best ones I can offer are those who have had multiple abortions. They did not have a plan that first time that they got pregnant and didn't want a baby. How did this experience affect their subsequent actions? They chose to not take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent it again.
And for those who face their first abortion situation, these are people who did not learn from other people's mistakes. I am talking about men as well as women here. Men have many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies as do women.
The obvious exceptions to these "Plan A" people are those couples who do take steps, but those efforts fail.
> Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
> children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> people there are.
My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority of those involved with abortions.
As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
The way that people in the first group end up with an unwanted pregnancy is through a low probability failure. The vast majority are from the second group, and that's what I've been referring to as the "Plan A" folk.
> > The parallel here might be having a cavalier attitude toward Russian
> > Roulette, simply because you are pointing the gun at someone else's
> > head instead of your own.
>
> Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
Abortion is the killing of an entity that is developing into human life. The Russian Roulette part is the decision a couple makes in the heat of the moment or whatever of doing actions that risk bringing a new life into being. The lethality is doing that act with the attitude that if a new life were to result then they will choose to kill it off.
I actually thought the analogy is quite straight forward. The "gun" is being pointed toward the head of the embryo/fetus. "On the chance that you are conceived and start to gestate, we will kill you off." Or... "We're not going to think anywhere close to that far ahead in what we're doing tonight, but when and if the time comes, then we will choose to kill you off."
> > (Substitute "someone" with "something" above for those who don't recognize
> > the life being killed as an individual.)
>
> What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> to refuse sex?
Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
And if orgasm is the goal, there are a multitude of ways to achieve that which do not risk unwanted pregnancy. And if orgasm through coitus is the goal, then a condom is a simple solution that is widely accessible. If you are saying that there are women who don't have access to condoms, then we certainly do have a huge problem on our hands if we cannot figure out something as simple as that.
What you seem to be saying is that there are couples who want to have unprotected sex and do not want to get pregnant but do not have access to high-tech forms of birth control.
That's like saying "I want to get in my car and drive into that brick wall, but I can't afford an airbag. Oh, and by the way, I don't feel like buckling up my seatbelt either because I don't like the way it feels across my torso." Once again, the saddest part of that is that the casualties are not them directly, but rather a third party who never asked to be involved.
=Dustin
> On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
>
> Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
Colbert is the master of irony. But I'm not aware of any position he holds on abortion that I don't agree with. I actually see a huge overlap of his views and my own on many issues.
>
> Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
<snip>
> > There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A
> > for birth control.
>
> Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> people to gestate is a good idea.
I don't recall ever advocating the forcing of anyone to gestate.
> > for birth control.
>
> Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> people to gestate is a good idea.
If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating, then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
When I say that people use abortion as Plan A, I do not mean that anyone is out there trying to get pregnant just to get an abortion. What I mean is that they are not taking necessary measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion becomes their -default- option. Their "plan" is not having a plan to prevent that course of consequences.
As for examples, the best ones I can offer are those who have had multiple abortions. They did not have a plan that first time that they got pregnant and didn't want a baby. How did this experience affect their subsequent actions? They chose to not take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent it again.
And for those who face their first abortion situation, these are people who did not learn from other people's mistakes. I am talking about men as well as women here. Men have many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies as do women.
The obvious exceptions to these "Plan A" people are those couples who do take steps, but those efforts fail.
> Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
> children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> people there are.
As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
The way that people in the first group end up with an unwanted pregnancy is through a low probability failure. The vast majority are from the second group, and that's what I've been referring to as the "Plan A" folk.
> > The parallel here might be having a cavalier attitude toward Russian
> > Roulette, simply because you are pointing the gun at someone else's
> > head instead of your own.
>
> Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
I actually thought the analogy is quite straight forward. The "gun" is being pointed toward the head of the embryo/fetus. "On the chance that you are conceived and start to gestate, we will kill you off." Or... "We're not going to think anywhere close to that far ahead in what we're doing tonight, but when and if the time comes, then we will choose to kill you off."
> > (Substitute "someone" with "something" above for those who don't recognize
> > the life being killed as an individual.)
>
> What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> to refuse sex?
And if orgasm is the goal, there are a multitude of ways to achieve that which do not risk unwanted pregnancy. And if orgasm through coitus is the goal, then a condom is a simple solution that is widely accessible. If you are saying that there are women who don't have access to condoms, then we certainly do have a huge problem on our hands if we cannot figure out something as simple as that.
What you seem to be saying is that there are couples who want to have unprotected sex and do not want to get pregnant but do not have access to high-tech forms of birth control.
That's like saying "I want to get in my car and drive into that brick wall, but I can't afford an airbag. Oh, and by the way, I don't feel like buckling up my seatbelt either because I don't like the way it feels across my torso." Once again, the saddest part of that is that the casualties are not them directly, but rather a third party who never asked to be involved.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Nov 24, 2012, 2:55:18 PM11/24/12
to
On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> From elizabeth:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > > I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
>
> > Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> > promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
>
> Colbert is the master of irony. But I'm not aware of any position he holds on abortion that I don't agree with. I actually see a huge overlap of his views and my own on many issues.
Who cares? Certainly not Colbert.
> From elizabeth:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > > I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
>
> > Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> > promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
>
> Colbert is the master of irony. But I'm not aware of any position he holds on abortion that I don't agree with. I actually see a huge overlap of his views and my own on many issues.
> <snip>
>
> > > There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A
> > > for birth control.
>
> > Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> > people to gestate is a good idea.
>
> I don't recall ever advocating the forcing of anyone to gestate.
> If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating, then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
child you don't want and/or can't care for is insane.
> And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
safest, cheapest, and most effective, as well as foolproof.
snip
Brevity, Dustbin, and save your essays for a blog which no one will
read.
> > Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
> > children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> > thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> > people there are.
>
> My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority of those involved with abortions.
Prove it.
> > children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> > thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> > people there are.
>
> My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority of those involved with abortions.
> As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
because no one has to justify aborting to a fuckstain like you, or
anyone else, for that matter.
Get the fuck over it, Dustbin.
> > Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> > sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> > yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
>
> Abortion is the killing of an entity that is developing into human life.
before gestation is complete, for a variety of reasons. Reproduction
is wasteful.
idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
misogyny.
> > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > to refuse sex?
>
> Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
Message has been deleted
dustin....@gmail.com
Nov 24, 2012, 7:45:07 PM11/24/12
to
From elizabeth:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A
> > > > for birth control.
> >
> > > Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> > > people to gestate is a good idea.
> >
> > I don't recall ever advocating the forcing of anyone to gestate.
>
> By banning abortion that is exactly what you will do.
I don't recall ever advocating the banning of abortion.
Everything in the Penal Code is oppressive (similar to how all "incentives" in the Tax Code are manipulative).
What I've been promoting is education and increased awareness, empathy and compassion. The reason we don't try to murder our neighbors is *not* because the act is illegal and we will be harshly punished. The reason we don't is because we simply don't want to. We've figured out much more evolved ways.
It wasn't always this way. Used to be, we needed to build strong stone walls to prevent our neighbors from killing us and raping us and taking our possessions.
> > If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then
> > they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating,
> > then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
>
> They are free to do so, but in a world this overpopulated, gestating a
> child you don't want and/or can't care for is insane.
Perhaps the insanity is *conceiving* a child that isn't wanted, when that situation is so easily preventable.
> > And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has
> > no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will
> > have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing
> > anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> I've always advocated for more males to get vasectomies, which is the
> safest, cheapest, and most effective, as well as foolproof.
> snip
> Brevity, Dustbin, and save your essays for a blog which no one will
> read.
I agree that using more words than necessary is a waste of time for both the reader as well as the author. As for blogs, I typically avoid them.
> > > Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
> > > children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> > > thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> > > people there are.
> >
> > My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority
> > of those involved with abortions.
>
> Prove it.
I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
> > As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There
> > are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they
> > don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and
> > they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
>
> Simply wrong, pure speculation on your part, and of no consequence,
> because no one has to justify aborting to a fuckstain like you, or
> anyone else, for that matter.
Well we did have a refreshingly mature interaction for a time there, elizabeth.
A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
> Get the fuck over it, Dustbin.
I do not expect you to agree with me, nor me with you. But the least we can gain from a constructive discussion is a better understanding of each other's positions.
> > > Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> > > sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> > > yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
> >
> > Abortion is the killing of an entity that is developing into human life.
>
> So what? Most zygotes die anyway, and a huge % of embryos die long
> before gestation is complete, for a variety of reasons. Reproduction
> is wasteful.
Death of every single human being is natural. I hope we are clear that this reasoning would not justify killing an adult.
> idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
> don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
> misogyny.
>
> > > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > > to refuse sex?
> >
> > Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
>
> Since all women in the world must face the very real danger of forced
> sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
The original topic was pregnancy resulting from rape. So apparently when you were asking above, "What of women who...are not free to refuse sex?" ...you were asking, "What of women who are raped?" This has been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.
And just to be clear, everyone who is raped is refusing sex. Otherwise it is not a rape.
=Dustin
> On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From elizabeth:
> >
> > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
> >
> > > Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> > > promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
> >
> > Colbert is the master of irony. But I'm not aware of any position he
> > holds on abortion that I don't agree with. I actually see a huge overlap
> > of his views and my own on many issues.
>
> Who cares? Certainly not Colbert.
I expect Colbert to care deeply about the issue of abortion. He was raised Roman Catholic, and best I can tell he is today a practicing Roman Catholic. Though I doubt that he upholds the exact position on this issue that the Pope does. Colbert seems far too rational and intelligent to allow himself to be blindly tied to dogma.
> > From elizabeth:
> >
> > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > I guess my hero Stephen Colbert would be proud that I spoke "from my gut", irregardless of what the facts might tell me.
> >
> > > Your "heio" is making fun of those whose political ideals you
> > > promote. Oh, the irony . .. .
> >
> > Colbert is the master of irony. But I'm not aware of any position he
> > holds on abortion that I don't agree with. I actually see a huge overlap
> > of his views and my own on many issues.
>
> Who cares? Certainly not Colbert.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > There are many people, male & female, who use abortion as their Plan A
> > > > for birth control.
> >
> > > Please identity who they are, how you know this, and why forcing such
> > > people to gestate is a good idea.
> >
> > I don't recall ever advocating the forcing of anyone to gestate.
>
> By banning abortion that is exactly what you will do.
Everything in the Penal Code is oppressive (similar to how all "incentives" in the Tax Code are manipulative).
What I've been promoting is education and increased awareness, empathy and compassion. The reason we don't try to murder our neighbors is *not* because the act is illegal and we will be harshly punished. The reason we don't is because we simply don't want to. We've figured out much more evolved ways.
It wasn't always this way. Used to be, we needed to build strong stone walls to prevent our neighbors from killing us and raping us and taking our possessions.
> > If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then
> > they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating,
> > then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
>
> They are free to do so, but in a world this overpopulated, gestating a
> child you don't want and/or can't care for is insane.
> > And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has
> > no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will
> > have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing
> > anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> I've always advocated for more males to get vasectomies, which is the
> safest, cheapest, and most effective, as well as foolproof.
> snip
> Brevity, Dustbin, and save your essays for a blog which no one will
> read.
> > > Seems to me that those are the sorts who shouldn't be allowed
> > > children! And do 'splain how you know the personal details of all
> > > thse folk's lives, and how you know this, and just how many of such
> > > people there are.
> >
> > My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority
> > of those involved with abortions.
>
> Prove it.
> > As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There
> > are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they
> > don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and
> > they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
>
> Simply wrong, pure speculation on your part, and of no consequence,
> because no one has to justify aborting to a fuckstain like you, or
> anyone else, for that matter.
A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
> Get the fuck over it, Dustbin.
> > > Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> > > sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> > > yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
> >
> > Abortion is the killing of an entity that is developing into human life.
>
> So what? Most zygotes die anyway, and a huge % of embryos die long
> before gestation is complete, for a variety of reasons. Reproduction
> is wasteful.
> idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
> don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
> misogyny.
>
> > > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > > to refuse sex?
> >
> > Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
>
> Since all women in the world must face the very real danger of forced
> sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
And just to be clear, everyone who is raped is refusing sex. Otherwise it is not a rape.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 24, 2012, 8:34:19 PM11/24/12
to
From Robert Parker:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:21:46 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> object to birth control, sex education.
I have not voiced any desire to impose my own personal values onto
anyone else, nor have I voiced support for any particular religion. I
happen to advocate sex education and birth control, in proper
settings.
> >If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating, then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
> >And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing
> >anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of false information, spread by
> religions.
My own estimate is that the vast majority of people in developed
nations as well as undeveloped nations are well aware of effective
steps that they can take in order to prevent a conception.
> >When I say that people use abortion as Plan A, I do not mean that anyone is out there trying to get pregnant just to get an abortion. What I mean is that they are not taking necessary measures to prevent an
> >unwanted pregnancy. Abortion becomes their -default- option. Their "plan" is not having a plan to prevent that course of consequences.
>
> You have to have accurate information in order to have a good plan.
I agree with that.
> >As for examples, the best ones I can offer are those who have had multiple abortions. They did not have a plan that first time that they got pregnant and didn't want a baby. How did this experience affect their
> >subsequent actions? They chose to not take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent it again.
>
> This group of yours is non existent, simply another one of your lies. Most
> abortions are on young ignorant religious girls that have been told lies
> about when it's safe to avoid a pregnancy. That's why the first line of
> defense is what the preacher hate the most. Comprehensive sex education.
> Education is the biggest enemy of religion. Want to avoid abortions,
> education and readily available contraceptives.
I fully support comprehensive age-appropriate sex education. I've
spoken about this at length on this forum in the past, including how
the current approaches could be greatly improved.
=Dustin
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:21:46 -0800 (PST), dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> >I don't recall ever advocating the forcing of anyone to gestate.
>
> You are opposed to abortion on demand and you support a religion that
>
> object to birth control, sex education.
I have not voiced any desire to impose my own personal values onto
anyone else, nor have I voiced support for any particular religion. I
happen to advocate sex education and birth control, in proper
settings.
> >If a couple has no desire to bring a new life into the world, and then they gain a greater sense of due regard for that life as it is gestating, then they may choose with no external pressure to carry that life to term.
> >And what I see to be a much smarter approach is that if the couple has no desire for a baby, then their increased awareness of due regard will have a significant impact to the decisions they make *prior to* doing
> >anything that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> religions.
My own estimate is that the vast majority of people in developed
nations as well as undeveloped nations are well aware of effective
steps that they can take in order to prevent a conception.
> >When I say that people use abortion as Plan A, I do not mean that anyone is out there trying to get pregnant just to get an abortion. What I mean is that they are not taking necessary measures to prevent an
> >unwanted pregnancy. Abortion becomes their -default- option. Their "plan" is not having a plan to prevent that course of consequences.
>
I agree with that.
> >As for examples, the best ones I can offer are those who have had multiple abortions. They did not have a plan that first time that they got pregnant and didn't want a baby. How did this experience affect their
> >subsequent actions? They chose to not take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent it again.
>
> abortions are on young ignorant religious girls that have been told lies
> about when it's safe to avoid a pregnancy. That's why the first line of
> defense is what the preacher hate the most. Comprehensive sex education.
> Education is the biggest enemy of religion. Want to avoid abortions,
> education and readily available contraceptives.
I fully support comprehensive age-appropriate sex education. I've
spoken about this at length on this forum in the past, including how
the current approaches could be greatly improved.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Nov 25, 2012, 6:59:26 PM11/25/12
to
> > Prove it.
>
> I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
> > > As for how I know this, I see it as simple deductive reasoning. There
> > > are people who don't want babies and take steps to make sure that they
> > > don't have them. And then there are people who don't want babies and
> > > they choose to take the risk that it will happen.
>
> > Simply wrong, pure speculation on your part, and of no consequence,
> > because no one has to justify aborting to a fuckstain like you, or
> > anyone else, for that matter.
>
> Well we did have a refreshingly mature interaction for a time there, elizabeth.
>
> A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
logic deficiency.
> > Get the fuck over it, Dustbin.
>
> I do not expect you to agree with me, nor me with you. But the least we can gain from a constructive discussion is a better understanding of each other's positions.
>
> > > > Irrelevant, unless you think getting pregnant should be a death
> > > > sentence .. . which is your point, being pregnant is like shooting
> > > > yourself in the head? Dude, even for you, that's insane.
>
> > > Abortion is the killing of an entity that is developing into human life.
>
> > So what? Most zygotes die anyway, and a huge % of embryos die long
> > before gestation is complete, for a variety of reasons. Reproduction
> > is wasteful.
> Death of every single human being is natural. I hope we are clear that this reasoning would not justify killing an adult.
a little money.
By omission. Just as dead.
> > idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
> > don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
> > misogyny.
>
> > > > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > > > to refuse sex?
>
> > > Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
>
> > Since all women in the world must face the very real danger of forced
> > sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
> The original topic was pregnancy resulting from rape. So apparently when you were asking above, "What of women who...are not free to refuse sex?" ...you were asking, "What of women who are raped?" This has been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.
>
> And just to be clear, everyone who is raped is refusing sex. Otherwise it is not a rape.
AND ARE PRORAPE you need to get assraped until you puke come. Case
closed.
And plenty of women have no reasonable way to refuse sex from a man,
or men, who is economically supporting them.
> =Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Nov 27, 2012, 1:26:59 AM11/27/12
to
From elizabeth:
to reject anything and everything that I've offered for any reason you
like.
<snip>
<snip>
simply get a job - a job that has nothing to do with sex. She then
gains the power to support herself. This is what the whole sexual
revolution was all about. And we have progressed decades beyond that
- roughly half a century beyond. Any woman who chooses to have sex
for financial gain is simply prostituting herself.
As for the notion that a lot of men are pro-rape, I am not aware of
the evidence for that. But if a person has been raped, I could see
how they could feel that way.
=Dustin
> On Nov 24, 4:45 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From elizabeth:
> > > On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From elizabeth:
> > > > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > From elizabeth:
> > > On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From elizabeth:
> > > > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > > > My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority
> > > > of those involved with abortions.
>
> You have no proof.
>
> > > Prove it.
>
> > I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of
> > any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
>
> If you still haven't been able to do basic research, you never will.
I am not here to force any of my views onto you. You are totally free
> > > > of those involved with abortions.
>
> You have no proof.
>
> > > Prove it.
>
> > I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of
> > any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
>
> If you still haven't been able to do basic research, you never will.
to reject anything and everything that I've offered for any reason you
like.
<snip>
> > Well we did have a refreshingly mature interaction for a time there, elizabeth.
>
> > A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
>
> You don't deserve any respect for your intellectual dishonesty and
> logic deficiency.
I myself choose to treat all with respect.
>
> > A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
>
> You don't deserve any respect for your intellectual dishonesty and
> logic deficiency.
<snip>
> > Death of every single human being is natural. I hope we are clear that this reasoning would not justify killing an adult.
>
> But we do happily allow millions to die who could be saved, with just
> a little money.
> By omission. Just as dead.
>
> > > idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
> > > don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
> > > misogyny.
>
> > > > > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > > > > to refuse sex?
>
> > > > Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
>
> > > Since all women in the world must face the very real danger of forced
> > > sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
>
> You are truly a failed abortioni.
>
> > The original topic was pregnancy resulting from rape. So apparently when you were asking above, "What of women who...are not free to refuse sex?" ...you were asking, "What of women who are raped?" This has been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.
>
> > And just to be clear, everyone who is raped is refusing sex. Otherwise it is not a rape.
>
> And since refusing sex DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE A LOT OF MEN DON'T CARE
> AND ARE PRORAPE you need to get assraped until you puke come. Case
> closed.
>
> And plenty of women have no reasonable way to refuse sex from a man,
> or men, who is economically supporting them.
The obvious solution for any such women who may feel that way is to
>
> But we do happily allow millions to die who could be saved, with just
> a little money.
> By omission. Just as dead.
>
> > > idiotic analogy snipped. Only women "pay" for pregnancy, the men
> > > don't, which is why your comments are facile to the point of insane
> > > misogyny.
>
> > > > > What of women who do not have access to contraception and are not free
> > > > > to refuse sex?
>
> > > > Everyone is free to refuse sex. The concept is known as self-control.
>
> > > Since all women in the world must face the very real danger of forced
> > > sex, you need to get assraped until you puke come.
>
> You are truly a failed abortioni.
>
> > The original topic was pregnancy resulting from rape. So apparently when you were asking above, "What of women who...are not free to refuse sex?" ...you were asking, "What of women who are raped?" This has been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.
>
> > And just to be clear, everyone who is raped is refusing sex. Otherwise it is not a rape.
>
> And since refusing sex DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE A LOT OF MEN DON'T CARE
> AND ARE PRORAPE you need to get assraped until you puke come. Case
> closed.
>
> And plenty of women have no reasonable way to refuse sex from a man,
> or men, who is economically supporting them.
simply get a job - a job that has nothing to do with sex. She then
gains the power to support herself. This is what the whole sexual
revolution was all about. And we have progressed decades beyond that
- roughly half a century beyond. Any woman who chooses to have sex
for financial gain is simply prostituting herself.
As for the notion that a lot of men are pro-rape, I am not aware of
the evidence for that. But if a person has been raped, I could see
how they could feel that way.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Nov 27, 2012, 2:58:36 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 26, 10:26 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From elizabeth:
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:45 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > From elizabeth:
> > > > On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > From elizabeth:
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority
> > > > > of those involved with abortions.
>
> > You have no proof.
>
> > > > Prove it.
>
> > > I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of
> > > any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
\
> From elizabeth:
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:45 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > From elizabeth:
> > > > On Nov 23, 7:21 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > From elizabeth:
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 3:57 am, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > My expectation is that this group of people comprise the vast majority
> > > > > of those involved with abortions.
>
> > You have no proof.
>
> > > > Prove it.
>
> > > I've been sharing my opinion on that. I do expect that research has been done to support my view, but I'm not aware of
> > > any. If anyone would like to present evidence that I'm out in left field on this, I'd appreciate seeing that.
Do you ever get the point?
> > If you still haven't been able to do basic research, you never will.
>
> I am not here to force any of my views onto you.
your opinions are based on faulty evidence, and thus, have no real
value to anyone but you.
> You are totally free
> to reject anything and everything that I've offered for any reason you
> like.
ridiculous arguments.
Had you a servicable background in OB/GYN matters, you would not make
such obviously idiotic statements.
> <snip>
>
> > > Well we did have a refreshingly mature interaction for a time there, elizabeth.
>
> > > A conclusion that is arrived at through sound logic is much stronger than pure speculation.
>
> > You don't deserve any respect for your intellectual dishonesty and
> > logic deficiency.
>
> I myself choose to treat all with respect.
And you are a fucked up douche at best.
snip
> > And plenty of women have no reasonable way to refuse sex from a man,
> > or men, who is economically supporting them.
>
> The obvious solution for any such women who may feel that way is to
> simply get a job
What job? You do know that women are attacked in the workplace,
> > or men, who is economically supporting them.
>
> The obvious solution for any such women who may feel that way is to
> simply get a job
generally by husbands or boyfriends? And what of women who are
situated so that they reasonably cannot get a job? Such as having
small children at home, etc.
Real easy to giive advice YOU don't have to follow, Dimwit.
> - a job that has nothing to do with sex. She then
> gains the power to support herself. This is what the whole sexual
> revolution was all about. And we have progressed decades beyond that
> - roughly half a century beyond. Any woman who chooses to have sex
> for financial gain is simply prostituting herself.
to safe housing, and all sexual predators are behind bars . .. take
your advice and shove it up your gaping ass.
> As for the notion that a lot of men are pro-rape, I am not aware of
> the evidence for that. But if a person has been raped, I could see
> how they could feel that way.
closeminded that you refuse to acknowlege inconvenient truths, that is
why your idiotic posts in here gained you nothing but derision.
> =Dustin- Hide quoted text -
Dustin Dewynne
Dec 2, 2012, 5:03:18 AM12/2/12
to
I will post a general reply, as it appears that once again our
discussion is devolving into argument-by-abuse, and I'm not sure how
productive it will be for me to continue on this thread.
If someone is posting erroneous facts, the most effective rebuttal I
know of is to present them with accurate facts, preferably supported
with references. Insults and generalities do very little to persuade
me that I am in error (even though I always remain open to that
possibility).
As for the oppression that women experience from men, I readily
acknowledge that. But let's also remain aware that there are many
women who are abusive to men. Perhaps the biggest irony in your stand
on how women are mistreated by men is the very example set here in our
discussions on this forum about how you, a female, and me, a male,
treat each other.
There are certainly many cases of women being abused. I might even be
convinced that it fits a societal 'norm'. But a complete
understanding would also recognize the horrible abuses that females
perpetrate on males. My recent class reunion for instance.. One of
my friends was not there this year. Why not? Because the woman he
had married had killed him. Shot dead, in a story vaguely similar to
Phil Hartman.
Granted, this is at the extreme end on the scale of violence. And
yes, it goes both ways. It takes two to tango, even if one "dance
partner" is dropping a bomb and the other is miles below on the
receiving end. There are many different human activities across this
scale of violence. I hope we can agree that abortion is a violent
act. Obviously there are widely different opinions on whether it is
an acceptable form of violence. Eating meat, or "carnism" as it has
been called, is a form of violence that is ubiquitously accepted in
most cultures across the globe - with some exceptions.
You strenuously object to women not being treated with respect. But
what of the sentient beings that so many people have little to no
concern for when they are "mistreated" (read- 'killed')?
There's a great leader who is known to have taught, "What you do to
the least of beings, you are doing to me." (paraphrased)
We are horrified when a woman is mistreated. Outraged when we hear
about someone in another culture eating dog, or horse, or dolphin.
Yet we don't care about us eating, say, a turkey on Thanksgiving. It
is no surprise that there are so many who are conditioned to have no
sensitivity to the plight of lesser entities. It is how we've been
raised. Strong men overpower weaker women. Strong women overpower
weaker children. Meanwhile Aretha Franklin sings about...
R - E - S - P - E - C - T
...and when the song is done she will take another bite out of her cow-
burger. She wants respect for herself. She wants respect for women.
But is she willing to give respect to those who she can easily
overpower if she chooses?
What if we were to learn that Aretha Franklin is not a vegetarian?
Clearly her scope of respect is limited so as not to include the
animals she finds tasty. And what if we were to learn that she had
gone through the abortion procedure at some point, or points, in her
life?
So many people would say that these are totally justified forms of
violence. So much so that we do it with little thought or care.
...or maybe we do care. Maybe our callous actions gnaw away at our
conscience. Maybe if our norm for our society were to raise all
children to treat ALL sentient beings with respect, and foremost with
treating the children themselves with respect as the example for them
to follow, then we'd have a *very* different world.
And maybe that world wouldn't have anyone spending time on discussions
of whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Maybe we would all
just know. It would be second nature. We could have an whole society
where people go around applying that thing called the Golden Rule.
"Well, am I glad that I wasn't aborted?" ...or... "WWFD? - What would
a fetus do? (if it could choose)"
I have my own answers to such questions. I've been called Wacko
because of the specific diet I choose. I totally understand the
criticism and hostility over that. And I understand the criticism and
hostility that I receive here. But my choice is that I will strive to
respond with absolutely no hostility or cruelty in return. The word
'kindness' means that you have a recognition that you are of the same
'kind', so therefore you will treat others with consideration. The
word is an encapsulation of the Golden Rule. It wraps around the word
that Aretha sings so passionately about. But 'kind' is a four-letter
word, and it only has power in the way we choose to act on it.
The fundamental question of this thread, and this entire forum, is
this:
* Is having an abortion a kind thing to do? *
The reason why the discussion can seem so intractable is because
logical arguments can be made on both sides of it. Some are
passionate in their view that abortion is the kindest thing to do (in
certain circumstances). Others, just as passionate on the opposite.
I do not tell anyone to believe what I believe. That is not a 'kind'
way to treat others, as I do not want anyone dictating their value
system onto me.
Everyone will come up with their own answers. And the collective
answer we have arrived at as a society is the answer that is perfectly
fitting to the level of awareness that our society as a whole is at
right now. But the reason we have these discussions is because we are
in the process of evolving. As a species we are today at a very
different place than we were just a short time ago. Elizabeth, maybe
you like skateboarding? Back in 1999, Tony Hawk's feat of landing a
Vert 900 was the pinnacle of spectacular. Well today there's a 12-
year old boy who is landing 1080's on the mega-ramp.
Society is advancing.
The question for the topic of abortion is whether we are clinging to a
position that will get left behind in the dust as sure as practices
like cannibalism and slavery have been jettisoned. Abortion may serve
a purpose today for some. But will it for others tomorrow?
I myself don't think that it is all too hard to predict that future
teenagers of the next generation will be as comfortable with the many
ways available for preventing unwanted pregnancies as the young crop
of skateboarders is heralding a new regime that the older folk never
saw coming.
And why is it that they young skateboarding stars are boys, not
girls? We're talking about kids who have not hit puberty yet, so
there isn't that hormonal differentiation between them yet. The girls
have not risen in that sport because of the forces that our cultural
conditioning places on them. These are the same types of forces that
shape these pre-teen's attitudes toward sex.
Your attitudes, my attitudes, and everyone's attitudes have all been
conditioned. The wisest among us question ourselves on how healthy
our attitudes are.
Ok, I started this post off with the intent that I was going to give a
brief general reply. It has turned out to be a very long reply.
Perhaps some would see this as me lacking in respect for the time that
others might want in reading this. But I will post anyway knowing
full well that anyone who sees no value in the content of my message
here is totally free to not bother reading any of this. But maybe
there is one person out there who will read it. Or maybe more than
one. And maybe this will be seen as an incremental part toward
helping along our society in its progress. There might be some words
that are found to be inspiring, just as the words I right here could
not have been written were it not for the countless many who I have
been inspired by.
And elizabeth, maybe I have found inspiration in my interaction with
you. It has certainly been challenging for me. I know you have
intended your words for me to be challenging. And if you have read
this far in this very long post, then perhaps you have seen my
offerings for you to be challenging as well.
Well finally I depart here with the words 'adios' and 'adieu'.
...both words meaning something like 'to God', or as many might
prefer, 'to a higher level of being'. I see that path as being
inevitable in the course of our evolution. We will arrive at the next
level whether or not we prefer things to remain as they are.
=Dustin
On Nov 27, 1:58 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
discussion is devolving into argument-by-abuse, and I'm not sure how
productive it will be for me to continue on this thread.
If someone is posting erroneous facts, the most effective rebuttal I
know of is to present them with accurate facts, preferably supported
with references. Insults and generalities do very little to persuade
me that I am in error (even though I always remain open to that
possibility).
As for the oppression that women experience from men, I readily
acknowledge that. But let's also remain aware that there are many
women who are abusive to men. Perhaps the biggest irony in your stand
on how women are mistreated by men is the very example set here in our
discussions on this forum about how you, a female, and me, a male,
treat each other.
There are certainly many cases of women being abused. I might even be
convinced that it fits a societal 'norm'. But a complete
understanding would also recognize the horrible abuses that females
perpetrate on males. My recent class reunion for instance.. One of
my friends was not there this year. Why not? Because the woman he
had married had killed him. Shot dead, in a story vaguely similar to
Phil Hartman.
Granted, this is at the extreme end on the scale of violence. And
yes, it goes both ways. It takes two to tango, even if one "dance
partner" is dropping a bomb and the other is miles below on the
receiving end. There are many different human activities across this
scale of violence. I hope we can agree that abortion is a violent
act. Obviously there are widely different opinions on whether it is
an acceptable form of violence. Eating meat, or "carnism" as it has
been called, is a form of violence that is ubiquitously accepted in
most cultures across the globe - with some exceptions.
You strenuously object to women not being treated with respect. But
what of the sentient beings that so many people have little to no
concern for when they are "mistreated" (read- 'killed')?
There's a great leader who is known to have taught, "What you do to
the least of beings, you are doing to me." (paraphrased)
We are horrified when a woman is mistreated. Outraged when we hear
about someone in another culture eating dog, or horse, or dolphin.
Yet we don't care about us eating, say, a turkey on Thanksgiving. It
is no surprise that there are so many who are conditioned to have no
sensitivity to the plight of lesser entities. It is how we've been
raised. Strong men overpower weaker women. Strong women overpower
weaker children. Meanwhile Aretha Franklin sings about...
R - E - S - P - E - C - T
...and when the song is done she will take another bite out of her cow-
burger. She wants respect for herself. She wants respect for women.
But is she willing to give respect to those who she can easily
overpower if she chooses?
What if we were to learn that Aretha Franklin is not a vegetarian?
Clearly her scope of respect is limited so as not to include the
animals she finds tasty. And what if we were to learn that she had
gone through the abortion procedure at some point, or points, in her
life?
So many people would say that these are totally justified forms of
violence. So much so that we do it with little thought or care.
...or maybe we do care. Maybe our callous actions gnaw away at our
conscience. Maybe if our norm for our society were to raise all
children to treat ALL sentient beings with respect, and foremost with
treating the children themselves with respect as the example for them
to follow, then we'd have a *very* different world.
And maybe that world wouldn't have anyone spending time on discussions
of whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Maybe we would all
just know. It would be second nature. We could have an whole society
where people go around applying that thing called the Golden Rule.
"Well, am I glad that I wasn't aborted?" ...or... "WWFD? - What would
a fetus do? (if it could choose)"
I have my own answers to such questions. I've been called Wacko
because of the specific diet I choose. I totally understand the
criticism and hostility over that. And I understand the criticism and
hostility that I receive here. But my choice is that I will strive to
respond with absolutely no hostility or cruelty in return. The word
'kindness' means that you have a recognition that you are of the same
'kind', so therefore you will treat others with consideration. The
word is an encapsulation of the Golden Rule. It wraps around the word
that Aretha sings so passionately about. But 'kind' is a four-letter
word, and it only has power in the way we choose to act on it.
The fundamental question of this thread, and this entire forum, is
this:
* Is having an abortion a kind thing to do? *
The reason why the discussion can seem so intractable is because
logical arguments can be made on both sides of it. Some are
passionate in their view that abortion is the kindest thing to do (in
certain circumstances). Others, just as passionate on the opposite.
I do not tell anyone to believe what I believe. That is not a 'kind'
way to treat others, as I do not want anyone dictating their value
system onto me.
Everyone will come up with their own answers. And the collective
answer we have arrived at as a society is the answer that is perfectly
fitting to the level of awareness that our society as a whole is at
right now. But the reason we have these discussions is because we are
in the process of evolving. As a species we are today at a very
different place than we were just a short time ago. Elizabeth, maybe
you like skateboarding? Back in 1999, Tony Hawk's feat of landing a
Vert 900 was the pinnacle of spectacular. Well today there's a 12-
year old boy who is landing 1080's on the mega-ramp.
Society is advancing.
The question for the topic of abortion is whether we are clinging to a
position that will get left behind in the dust as sure as practices
like cannibalism and slavery have been jettisoned. Abortion may serve
a purpose today for some. But will it for others tomorrow?
I myself don't think that it is all too hard to predict that future
teenagers of the next generation will be as comfortable with the many
ways available for preventing unwanted pregnancies as the young crop
of skateboarders is heralding a new regime that the older folk never
saw coming.
And why is it that they young skateboarding stars are boys, not
girls? We're talking about kids who have not hit puberty yet, so
there isn't that hormonal differentiation between them yet. The girls
have not risen in that sport because of the forces that our cultural
conditioning places on them. These are the same types of forces that
shape these pre-teen's attitudes toward sex.
Your attitudes, my attitudes, and everyone's attitudes have all been
conditioned. The wisest among us question ourselves on how healthy
our attitudes are.
Ok, I started this post off with the intent that I was going to give a
brief general reply. It has turned out to be a very long reply.
Perhaps some would see this as me lacking in respect for the time that
others might want in reading this. But I will post anyway knowing
full well that anyone who sees no value in the content of my message
here is totally free to not bother reading any of this. But maybe
there is one person out there who will read it. Or maybe more than
one. And maybe this will be seen as an incremental part toward
helping along our society in its progress. There might be some words
that are found to be inspiring, just as the words I right here could
not have been written were it not for the countless many who I have
been inspired by.
And elizabeth, maybe I have found inspiration in my interaction with
you. It has certainly been challenging for me. I know you have
intended your words for me to be challenging. And if you have read
this far in this very long post, then perhaps you have seen my
offerings for you to be challenging as well.
Well finally I depart here with the words 'adios' and 'adieu'.
...both words meaning something like 'to God', or as many might
prefer, 'to a higher level of being'. I see that path as being
inevitable in the course of our evolution. We will arrive at the next
level whether or not we prefer things to remain as they are.
=Dustin
On Nov 27, 1:58 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
elizabeth
Dec 2, 2012, 5:28:25 PM12/2/12
to
Because you can't come up with a response to the licking you took in
here.
Save this lengthy blathering for a blog.
>as it appears that once again our
> discussion is devolving into argument-by-abuse, and I'm not sure how
> productive it will be for me to continue on this thread.
No one invited you and you are free to leave at any time.
> If someone is posting erroneous facts, the most effective rebuttal I
> know of is to present them with accurate facts, preferably supported
> with references. Insults and generalities do very little to persuade
> me that I am in error (even though I always remain open to that
> possibility).
You have been provided, in both your unfortunate forays into the ng,
with plenty of sources. The fact is, you don't want to read the
proof, you won't consider evidence, and you continue to post your
opinions rather than use known and accepted data.
> As for the oppression that women experience from men, I readily
> acknowledge that. But let's also remain aware that there are many
> women who are abusive to men.snip
When women kill men at the same rate, when women sexually brutalize
men at the same rate . . .you will have a point.
Go kill yourself, Dustbin Dimwit, you refuse to deal with reality, you
refuse to deal with the facts, and you're a sore loser when your
inadequacies are pointed out to you.
here.
Save this lengthy blathering for a blog.
>as it appears that once again our
> discussion is devolving into argument-by-abuse, and I'm not sure how
> productive it will be for me to continue on this thread.
> If someone is posting erroneous facts, the most effective rebuttal I
> know of is to present them with accurate facts, preferably supported
> with references. Insults and generalities do very little to persuade
> me that I am in error (even though I always remain open to that
> possibility).
with plenty of sources. The fact is, you don't want to read the
proof, you won't consider evidence, and you continue to post your
opinions rather than use known and accepted data.
> As for the oppression that women experience from men, I readily
> acknowledge that. But let's also remain aware that there are many
When women kill men at the same rate, when women sexually brutalize
men at the same rate . . .you will have a point.
Go kill yourself, Dustbin Dimwit, you refuse to deal with reality, you
refuse to deal with the facts, and you're a sore loser when your
inadequacies are pointed out to you.
elizabeth
Dec 2, 2012, 5:32:07 PM12/2/12
to
On Dec 2, 2:03 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
> And elizabeth, maybe I have found inspiration in my interaction with
> you.
on yourself.
> It has certainly been challenging for me. I know you have
> intended your words for me to be challenging. And if you have read
> this far in this very long post,
Try responding to my posts, not a general blather about how you're
declaring victory and running away . . . a common MO amongst the
antiabortniks in this forum over the years I've been flaming idiots in
here. Many of them keep coming back, often using new handles, spewing
the same bullshit we've heard and disregarded for logical, reasonable,
and sane reasons, for decades now.
There is simply no justification to in any way curtail abortion rights
to any and all females.
Case motherfucking closed.
> then perhaps you have seen my
> offerings for you to be challenging as well.
dustin....@gmail.com
Dec 4, 2012, 2:28:45 AM12/4/12
to
One point I totally agree with you on is that it would be best for me to disengage with you from this discussion, so this will be my final reply to you in this thread.
Instead of replying to specific points, I will post this video of a TEDxTalk by Steven Pinker about the History of Human Violence and its long-term trend of dramatic decrease:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjT4HlNJNgI&t=11m22s
It's cued up to the point where he makes the same points I had just made in my previous post, but he provides many graphs as support.
Perhaps most interesting is that his talk is about various forms of human violence, but he never mentions abortion at all. He offers this as an explanation as to why violence has seen such a huge decrease from the earliest days of history through today:
(QUOTE)
_____________________
Well what do we have on the other side to counteract these violent inclinations? ...
- There's self-control: circuitry in the pre-frontal cortex that can anticipate the consequences of behavior and
inhibit our violent impulses.
- There's empathy: the ability to feel others' pain.
- There's the moral sense: A system of norms and taboos that govern what we feel is appropriate behavior.
And finally,
- There's reason: cognitive process that allow us to engage in objective detached analysis.
_____________________
We can all decide for ourselves how the issue of abortion fits into this long trend. And his talk also relates to points I had made earlier in this thread about how other problems in our history that had seemed intractable have now been solved (or at least, vastly improved).
Ok, goodbye elizabeth. I am leaving with gladness in knowing that we've made progress here compared to our previous interactions. Obviously far from ideal, but noticeable steps in a positive direction.
=Dustin
Instead of replying to specific points, I will post this video of a TEDxTalk by Steven Pinker about the History of Human Violence and its long-term trend of dramatic decrease:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjT4HlNJNgI&t=11m22s
It's cued up to the point where he makes the same points I had just made in my previous post, but he provides many graphs as support.
Perhaps most interesting is that his talk is about various forms of human violence, but he never mentions abortion at all. He offers this as an explanation as to why violence has seen such a huge decrease from the earliest days of history through today:
(QUOTE)
_____________________
Well what do we have on the other side to counteract these violent inclinations? ...
- There's self-control: circuitry in the pre-frontal cortex that can anticipate the consequences of behavior and
inhibit our violent impulses.
- There's empathy: the ability to feel others' pain.
- There's the moral sense: A system of norms and taboos that govern what we feel is appropriate behavior.
And finally,
- There's reason: cognitive process that allow us to engage in objective detached analysis.
_____________________
We can all decide for ourselves how the issue of abortion fits into this long trend. And his talk also relates to points I had made earlier in this thread about how other problems in our history that had seemed intractable have now been solved (or at least, vastly improved).
Ok, goodbye elizabeth. I am leaving with gladness in knowing that we've made progress here compared to our previous interactions. Obviously far from ideal, but noticeable steps in a positive direction.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Dec 4, 2012, 3:28:34 PM12/4/12
to
On Dec 3, 11:28 pm, dustin.dewy...@gmail.com wrote:
How can we miss you if you won't go away, Dimwit?
> One point I totally agree with you on is that it would be best for me to disengage with you from this discussion, so this will be my final reply to you in this thread.
Promises, promises ....
> Instead of replying to specific points,
snip
Since you won't respond, you concede all my points. Now run along,
Dimwit.
snip
since you will never face an unwanted pregnancy, and thus, you really
don't have a dog in this fight.
> Ok, goodbye elizabeth. I am leaving with gladness in knowing that we've made progress here compared to our previous interactions. Obviously far from ideal, but noticeable steps in a positive direction.
Shut the fuck up and let women decide what to do with their bodies,
unless you're a rapist, and if you are, you need to be removed from
society by whatever means necessary.
How can we miss you if you won't go away, Dimwit?
> One point I totally agree with you on is that it would be best for me to disengage with you from this discussion, so this will be my final reply to you in this thread.
> Instead of replying to specific points,
Since you won't respond, you concede all my points. Now run along,
Dimwit.
snip
> We can all decide for ourselves how the issue of abortion fits into this long trend.
And your opinions on the matter simply don't have any real value,
since you will never face an unwanted pregnancy, and thus, you really
don't have a dog in this fight.
> Ok, goodbye elizabeth. I am leaving with gladness in knowing that we've made progress here compared to our previous interactions. Obviously far from ideal, but noticeable steps in a positive direction.
unless you're a rapist, and if you are, you need to be removed from
society by whatever means necessary.
0 new messages